Craziest activist photos from the #marchforscience #sciencemarchdc

Their true colors shine brightly:

This Earth Day, April 22, Earth Day Network and the March for Science are co-organizing a rally and teach-in on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The day’s program will include speeches and trainings with scientists and civic organizers, musical performances, and a march through the streets of Washington, D.C. The crowd will gather at 8:00am, and the teach-in will begin at 09:00am.

Here’s a photo of AP’s science writer Seth Borenstein doing an interview with, er, Barney. I think. Pretty well sums up Seth’s outlook.

Godwin’s law was proven early, and this sign, pretty well sums up the insanity:

I seem to recall leftists went berserk when the Heartland institute put up a billboard with a similar meme, using the unabomber. But, apparently its OK when they do it.

Ummm….WTF?

More wackyiness:

Wow, just wow.

Seems that the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lot of hate. This is from their Twitter feed, but note they are too timid to put their organization name on any of the posters.

Losers.

Riiiight…you did it for science.

And here’s more….

I’m pretty sure that’s not 500 women:

 

Note the circle – looks like some of the communist worker signs of the 50’s

Umm, no.

So do environmental taxes.

Fantasy science heros:

Publicity seeking science activist Michael Mann team with Bill Nye the idiot guy:

The pussy hat is a nice touch:

This post will be updated throughout the day.

(NOTE: title was changed at 1:25PM PST to reflect the majority of the content here)


So far it looks like Woodstock, I’m sure there will be plenty of entertainingly silly memes and moments. Readers are invited to share what they find elsewhere.

Advertisements

438 thoughts on “Craziest activist photos from the #marchforscience #sciencemarchdc

    • I remember when this was march was first proposed, I like many of us thought it would be a serious statement attended by some serious people, and as a result, that we may have to take it seriously.

      And now it’s just turned into the same old far left freakshow, hasn’t it? I mean ask yourself, is there any difference at all between what’s going on today and the “Queer Dance Party” that was held in front of Mike Pence’s house a few weeks ago? Looking at the pictures, I don’t think you can see any.

      The left has become a totally frivolous and anti-intellectual force devoted to stoking it’s own members egos and nothing more. And that’s all that today’s “march” is an expression of.

      • The left has always been about organized denial of reality. They no longer have the mass media between them and the majority of the population, to hide their worst excesses. Anyone can record them at work and post that straight to Youtube, where it will be seen by millions. Worse, they do it themselves, posting insane rants on the Internet whenever the mood takes them.

        Now we can see them red in tooth and claw on the Internet, and few people like what they’re seeing.

      • You could have deduced the nature of the march by knowing the day/date it was to be held…

      • This march and all similar is about “The Money”. Western world debt is now at a tipping point. The printers have failed and interest rates need to rise but cannot. If the Fed raises rates just 2% there will be a depression. If interest rates are not increased we face the creation of new claimant states that can only exist via the printer.

        Without the gods of climate change and Gaia worship just what would all the useless part of the educated elite do? Clearly, the main issue is that they have no viable function in a healthy economy. If we want to cure this cancer of science we must direct the weak minded to more worthwhile tasks off the government payroll. Sucking on the tax purse by “government scientists” is only ok is they all stare out of a window doing nothing.

        Allowing these people to do something costs more then if they do nothing. So pay them to do nothing and make sure they do nothing.

      • Ooooh! Writing dirty words on a poster makes you SUCH a “revolutionary,” right? In NYC they call that, “graffiti.” Intellect optional.

      • Robert B..
        Nice post. What ticks me off is that my taxes pay for our publicly funded universities and you can actually get degrees in this sh##t.

      • “All gender identities are welcome but we encourage male identifying folks to practice active listening”

        In other words … ” shut the f..k up “

      • You need a good dose of reality. An awful lot of people here figured up front that this was organized with Soros money and that it would be a freak show.

      • Queer dance party looked to have a more cohesive message, to be better attended by people related to its stated cause, and to be more fun.

        Really, the Dance Party at Mike Pence’s house was a much better even from conception to completion.

    • Offline
      Mikhail Lysenkomann
      4/19/2016, 9:21 pm
      User avatar

      April 22 is Vladimir Lenin’s birthday Earth Day!

      I was a part of this movement on the first Earth Day in 1970. I was a recent convert to the Radical underground at the time, and the significance of 22 April 1970 was not lost on us young Communists: it was Vladimir Lenin’s 100th birthday — a day that would be celebrated by Communists worldwide.

      We were well aware of the goals of the environmentalist movement: it had nothing to do with the environment. Our end goal then remains the same today among all of the various environmental causes: the destruction of Capitalism, with the United States ruled under Communism.

      And the best way to destroy an economic system is to deny it the use of its own energy, and its own resources.

      This is what the anti-nuclear movement, which began during my time as a Radical, was about. It is what the spotted owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest was about. It is what the so-called “ozone hole” issue was about.

      And it is what Global Warming “Climate Change” is all about. And it’s the only thing it’s about. It’s the only thing it’s ever been about.

      So, this Earth Day, raise a glass of beet vodka to Comrade Lenin and celebrate the Glorious World of Next Tuesday that is coming, as soon as we can get rid of all those nasty Kapitalists [spit, spit] that are oppressing us all!

      • Did you lift that from the People’s Cube? If so, you really should credit it, it is a great site at making fun of leftists in general. Mikhail Lysenkoman is the pseudonym of one of their most prolific posters. I usually get a good chuckle out of them, but sometimes their parody is too spot on to laugh at.

      • What a thrill to see my People’s Cube (http://thepeoplescube.com) Earth Day post from last year re-posted here!

        Yes, *I* am the real-life person behind the avatar known as Comrade Lysenkomann.

        It’s a satire site, but I marked this particular piece as not-satire. The story above is my real-life story.

        And here I thought that no one ever sees or reads my stuff…

    • From David Appell’s site: from signs at the Mall

      Society should worry when geeks have to demonstrate.
      Act now or swim later.
      I’ve seen cleaner cabinets at AKEA.
      Science is the cure for bullsh$t.
      Less Invasions More Equations.
      Den1al is Deadly.
      Emrerical Data is Sexy.
      Ice has no Agenda, It just melts.
      Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood…
      Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less — Marie Curie.
      What do we want? Science Based Policy. When do we want it? After peer review!
      Neurons not morons.
      I can’t believe I’m marching for facts.
      I’m not a mad Scientist. I’m absolutely furious.
      Make reality great again.

      E vidence
      P rodences
      A merical

      Believe in a Scientist or a Stockholder?
      No sides in science.
      Science saved my husband’s life.
      Knowing stuff is good. Seriouly why do I even have march for this geez.
      Science is real. Trump is not.
      I know science. My science is best. It’s terrific. Everyone says so.
      Believe in love. Trust in data. Save the world.
      so bad, even introverts are here.

      and my favorite, on a Labrador Retriever:
      Science Lab.

    • When did belief in good science become code words for AGW? I strongly believe in science as a seeker of truth. I just think that the Climate stuff is exaggerated. Too many people are trying to make a living from it. Remember though that because someone is rightly skeptical about this issue doesn’t mean they are inoculated from being very wrong on some others. Some of the comments about leftist and communists are as exaggerated as the belief in severe climate change.

  1. Weather in DC yesterday: mostly cloudy, 78 degrees.

    Weather in DC today: light rain, 59 degrees, chance of rain 90%

    What’s the old saying? “Whom God loveth, He first chastiseth”?

    God must love the Warmists, ’cause they get chastised every time out.

      • Light to moderate rain, with periods of heavy rain all day in Washington DC.
        53 deg F.
        That’s climate justice for the stupid.

      • Right now at its high for the day, 56 degrees F, with light rain.

        There is a just God after all.

        Snow would have been even more just however. Guess I didn’t pray hard enough.

      • pretty unpleasant NE wind with it most of the day too. I wouldn’t want to spend the day out in it. But then, I’m not dedicated to the proposition. Nor are my science welfare checks being cut off.

      • OT, but, secryn, couldn’t resist a reply:

        The rain it falleth on the just,
        And also on the unjust fella;
        But chiefly on the just because
        The unjust steals the just’s umbrella.

        (Sorry.)

      • @ Chimp – stick around a little. The snow and record freezes in Europe are about to show up in May for the U.S. in some places. I hope it doesn’t cause the crop destruction it did in Europe.

    • I notice that no one is wearing anything that wasn’t made by using fossil fuels. Where are all the hand woven garments using hemp fiber and wool?

      • Where did they get the pictures with clear blue skies and lots of sun? I live 30 miles from DC, and it sure weren’t like that here.

        Also did anyone notice the picture of the “women scientists,” with one of them holding a sign saying “Science is not
        √ -1 
        ?

        “Scientists” that don’t know I, huh? Interesting.

      • Yes I found it interesting a couple of signs said that (science is not sq root(-1)), seemingly completely oblivious to all of the advances in mathematics and science that have been brought about by i.

      • I read it as “science is not a complex number”.

        Sq root (-1) is a complex number, right?

        Nothing imaginary about the real world applications of complex numbers.

  2. Yawn. I’m doing my part to add CO2 to the atmosphere. Of course, I’m flying commercial, not private, not everyone can be like Leonardo DiCaprio.

    • Thanks for point out that video. At least some scientists are still honest. It’s a shame my browser (Firefox) wouldn’t ‘Go Back’ to here after viewing it. It just kept refreshing the WSJ page. Has anyone else noticed that problem?

      • Let me know if you think the Warmists fit any of these descriptions:

        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships.

        Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused

        The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

        Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

        Mind-altering practices are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

        The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and fee

        The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar�or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity)

        The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society

        The leader is not accountable to any authorities

        The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary.

        The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion

        Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

        The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

        The group is preoccupied with making money.

        Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities

        Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

        The most loyal members feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
        Dr. M.D.Langone and Dr. J.Lalich — Cults 101
        ___________________________________________________________________________________

        Checks, all the way down. And that’s why passing on facts hasn’t had an impact on the most devout. Reverse brainwashing will be the only method that works.

      • The collective IQ of leftists is much lower than the the sum of the IQs of the individual members of the leftist collective. It is difficult to imagine Trump having been elected without these mass displays of “collective stupidity.”

      • Someone once claimed that the intelligence of a crowd could be calculated by taking the average intelligence of the people in the crowd, then dividing by the number of people in the crowd.

    • How do they not recognize that their’s is a political movement and not a scientific one? This movement breaks down into two groups manipulators and morons. You have to walk amongst them to tell them apart. The former talk like professors and lawyers (down to you) and know that CAGW is a taxpayer funded hoax and they are trying to save their meal ticket. The latter sound like undergraduates ie indoctrinated idiots with memorized talking points sans original thought. .

      • To the left, everything is political. So they don’t see anything wrong with politicizing science. So long as it’s their politics the science is serving.

        Also, most are utterly unable to see themselves from another person’s point-of-view, so they don’t even realize how bad they look to saner minds.

      • p2b: Your “manipulators and morons” pretty much describes most if not all of the left wing movements from environmentalism to global warming. However, it is not limited just to the left wing, the far right tends toward that as well. Any organization founded by man eventually turns that direction, especially when there is plenty of power and/or money involved. Power and money draw different types of manipulators while the “morons” are just ignorant ‘True Believers’ that want to save the world by jumping on the latest craze. D.C. and the ‘five counties’ have mostly gone that direction, so I imagine that is the “swamp” President Trump was talking about with his “drain the swamp” objective (which should have more appropriately been “flush the swamp”).

      • To your point Bill Nye was on MSNBC and tried to justify the fact that the March WAS political:

        Bill Nye “the Science Guy” said Saturday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” that he believes science is political, reasoning that the Constitution grants Congress the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.”
        “I just want to remind the administration that science is political,” Nye told host Joy Reid.
        “It is inherently political, like everything else. We have to make decisions on how to allocate our intellect and treasure and it’s in the U.S. Constitution … ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts.’ And my interpretation of the expression, “useful arts” is engineering. In those days, it would be architecture, city planning, designing of sewage systems, communication systems. This is all in the U.S. Constitution,” he reasoned.
        The phase he references comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 which grants the Fed Gov the power to establish the US Patent Office …”in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts”. Only by taking that phrase way out of context can you contend that Article 1 grants the government the power to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts” and further to “allocate our intellect and treasure”.

        …but wasn’t the intent of the March to object to the idea that DJT was politicising science?!?

      • George: I haven’t quite figured out ‘The Science Guy’ yet. I think he belongs in the ‘morons’ and ‘useful idiots’ category but I’m not sure. He could imagine he’s ‘trying to save the world’. But, I guess he might be one of the ‘manipulators’. He just doesn’t, at least to me, appear to be that smart. He seems to have fallen for the Climate Change/Global Warming fiasco hook, line and sinker.

    • In regards to trees

      Many experiments have suggested that leaf tissues of living plants emit methane. Eg.

      Title: Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions
      Authors: Keppler, Frank; Hamilton, John T. G.; Braß, Marc; Röckmann, Thomas

      Affiliation: AA(Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany), AB(Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science Division, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK), AC(Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany), AD(Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany)
      Publication: Nature, Volume 439, Issue 7073, pp. 187-191 (2006). (Nature Homepage)

      Publication Date: 01/2006
      Origin: NATURE

      DOI: 10.1038/nature04420

      Bibliographic Code: 2006Natur.439..187K

      Abstract
      Methane is an important greenhouse gas and its atmospheric concentration has almost tripled since pre-industrial times. It plays a central role in atmospheric oxidation chemistry and affects stratospheric ozone and water vapour levels. Most of the methane from natural sources in Earth’s atmosphere is thought to originate from biological processes in anoxic environments. Here we demonstrate using stable carbon isotopes that methane is readily formed in situ in terrestrial plants under oxic conditions by a hitherto unrecognized process. Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed during incubation experiments in the laboratory and in the field. If our measurements are typical for short-lived biomass and scaled on a global basis, we estimate a methane source strength of 62-236Tgyr-1 for living plants and 1-7Tgyr-1 for plant litter (1Tg = 1012g). We suggest that this newly identified source may have important implications for the global methane budget and may call for a reconsideration of the role of natural methane sources in past climate change.

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.439..187K

      Effects of elevated pressure on rate of photosynthesis during plant growth.
      Takeishi H1, Hayashi J, Okazawa A, Harada K, Hirata K, Kobayashi A, Akamatsu F.
      Author information
      Abstract
      The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of an artificially controlled environment, particularly elevated total pressure, on net photosynthesis and respiration during plant growth. Pressure directly affects not only cells and organelles in leaves but also the diffusion coefficients and degrees of solubility of CO2 and O2. In this study, the effects of elevated total pressure on the rates of net photosynthesis and respiration of a model plant, Arabidopsis thaliana, were investigated in a chamber that newly developed in this study to control the total pressure. The results clearly showed that the rate of respiration decreased linearly with increasing total pressure at a high humidity. The rate of respiration decreased linearly with increasing total pressure up to 0.2 MPa (2 ATM), and increased with increasing total pressure from 0.3 to 0.5 MPa at a low humidity. The rate of net photosynthesis decreased linearly with increasing total pressure under a constant partial pressure of CO2 at 40 Pa. On the other hand, the rate of net photosynthesis was clearly increased by up to 1.6-fold with increasing total pressure and partial pressure of CO2.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23994480

      In summary, more CO2, more trees and more leaves. More leaves, more atmospheric methane. Is it a problem? No-one knows and few are investigating it. The simple act of Gaia Day and the government of planting trees to placate “scientists” via “mitigating global warming” by capturing carbon may cause global warming.

      Methane is a strong greenhouse gas. While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.

      • Methane residence time in the atmosphere is exceedingly short. It oxidizes so fast if you blink, you will miss the measurement. (only a slight exaggeration!)

      • If memory serves, Superman’s father discovered that the planet was going to explode, but failed to sway the scientific consensus that was wrong and too politically entrenched to acknowledge the truth.

      • Hoyt is right, in the classic version Jor-El tries to tell the Kryptonian science council that the planet is doomed but the “consensus” dismisses him (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fclHBV8hMIo ). Moreover, it seems that emigration from the planet was controlled and there was no freedom of movement, much like… communist countries today.

        Sadly, in the new “Man of Steel” version they introduced a narrative that Jor-Els view was the consensus, but the evil council drained Krypton’s core anyway. (By the way Krypton being destroyed by “environmental damage” instead of natural causes was another retcon fitting the modern Zeitgeist.0

      • Similar to how they turned the classic “The Day the Earth Stood Still” on its head with the remake. I have never watched the entire thing. It was just too stupid.

    • Without the free kiddies paint pots handed out it’s just a cardboard box.

      A proper scientist would have carefully researched the required materials for a march and prepared them in advance. A left leaning groupie just turns up and fishes a bit of cardboard (or a whole box !) out of the rubbish skip.

      Here in England (Yes, that is where they are) the words “brewery” and “pissup” can be joined in an appropriate saying.

      All in all VERY disappointing – ONLY 1 LAB COAT . Poor show chaps !

      • Badger,
        I laughed. Hugely. No risk to my monitor, as I was not holding/drinking wine!

        “the words “brewery” and “pissup” can be joined in an appropriate saying.”

        But plus shed loads and shed loads.
        Thank you.

        Auto, still smiling broadly!

  3. Ohh … how a dozen or so harmless water snakes released in the midst of that crowd would help to raise the level of excitement.

  4. “Not even Hitler doubted climate change”. The marchers don’t doubt climate change, this puts them openly in the same league.

    • Hey Hitler was for population control, didn’t eat meat and was against smoking…
      perfect greenie..

      • Actually Hitler’s environmental policies would put him on the slightly more sane side of this crowd – still insane, but not out of the main of this crowd’s thought.

      • tgmccoy and Owen in GA

        From the late 1930s on he also was increasingly on crystal meth supplied by his personal physician – think maniacal, obsessive behavior.

        Underpinning the Nazi party’ line on the environment was the element of the adoration of Nature that runs throughout 18th and 19th century Germany culture. Modern day environmentalism likewise embraces Nature as a standalone “being” that needs to be adored and protected from man – and although crystal meth does not appear to be one of the movement’s mainstay drugs, environmentalism displays the same maniacal, obsessive drive, and crucially, the same totalitarian mindset.

  5. Have to say, the result of brain washing liberal left education. Boys and girls all march in step now.

  6. I respect debate on climate change, it’s healthy. But a President who suspects a links between Autism and inoculations is extremely worrying. There is no respected study which supports such a belief, and a mountain of good evidence to say that it is nonsense.

    • Unfortunately Gareth, there is NO debate allowed on Climate Change. CAGW is a Religion and a Political Movement. There is NO SCIENCE in this philosophy. Expensive Climate “Modeling” which has so far failed over 160 times to accurately predict or even approximate ACTUAL Climate Reality is proof that CAGW is a myth and has no place in Scientific Discussions.

    • GP,

      Please try to stay on topic.

      Your attempt to re-direct this thread will go nowhere. Hopefully there will be no other acknowledgement of your comment.

      • eyesonu
        His comment is completely relevant. Trumps ignorance and distant for good science is the reason this march is happening. Perhaps you should get on topic.

      • It’s happening because a bunch of freeloading troughfeeders see their gravy train being derailed.

      • Simple Simon. Trump has more respect for REAL science than any of those marchers will ever have.

      • I suppose the worry regarding Mr.Trumps non-scientific beliefs are that while climate change theory can be debated, the links to ill health either way are not well demonstrated. However, when he says things that may influence people to avoid inoculating their children, people die as a result. Straight forward causation..
        Many Doctors and nurses in Pakistan and other countries have been murdered by psychopaths masquerading as Taliban or other group, for trying to prevent diseases like polio from ravaging poor communities. When an influential person like the POTUS is careless with facts, he encourages people like the Taliban who say “Look, even the US president agrees with us! ”
        If you are in an influential position, you should heed you science advisors and not encourage conspiracy theories known to have no basis in reality.
        By the way Eyeonu, this is very much within the meaning of the thread as a scientific issue. Medical treatment is being undermined. Medical science is still science despite your protestations.

    • “But a President who suspects a links between Autism and inoculations is extremely worrying.”

      To me, few things are more worrying than the bizarre belief that injecting toxic things directly into people’s bloodstream cannot possibly harm them . . I mean, as long as the magical incantation *Vaccine* is written on the container . .

      As far as I can determine, there is no “mountain of good evidence”, just lots of CAGW clan style badmouthing of anyone who questions that other Big moneymaker.

    • There is no respected study
      ============
      appeal to authority. same excuse given to ignore gulf war syndrome. until the cause is known, you cannot discount the unknown unknowns, no matter how “expert” the opinion.

      until the cause is known, anyone that discounts any cause is extremely worrying. for example, say the cause is a vaccine combined with some other factor. If you test the vaccine alone, you will conclude that the vaccine is not the cause, because it will show a negative result. if however you therefore conclude you no longer need to look at vaccine as the cause, you will never find the cause, because you will never test the vaccine in combination with that specific something else that is causing the problem.

      • “The biggest driver is waning immunity from our vaccines,” said Tami Skoff, an epidemiologist with the division of bacterial diseases of the C.D.C. “The protection doesn’t last as long as we originally thought it would.”
        https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/why-pertussis-is-making-a-comeback/?_r=0

        Could be like antibiotics and we don’t know the full ramifications of what we’re doing for generations. In that sense the science is never settled but that’s not what the ‘vaccinate or die’ mob ever want anyone to even contemplate and you’re branded a heretic if you do. Any dissent interferes with their undying notion that more Gummint can save everybody every time and in CAGW they have the quintessential bogeyman to save us all from. Just repent your evil individualist ways and with ever more grants you will be saved by all the wise, noble folk with the placards.

      • Specifically with whooping cough vaccination might even be producing more asymptomatic carriers-
        https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/symptom-free-carriers-may-be-spreading-whooping-cough/

        “There are interacting factors — individual susceptibility, vaccination, behavior,” Dr. Althouse said. “To properly predict where we are and where we will go, we have to consider all of the interacting systems together.”

        But definitely not with anything as complex as global climate and it’s all down to anthropogenic CO2 folks.

        Dr. Althouse said a new vaccine — more effective than the acellular vaccine — was needed. But, he added, “until we get that vaccine, it is more important than ever to be vaccinated, and we need to keep the vaccination levels high.”

        It’s that old deja vu feeling again as in- We can’t explain the decline and it’s a travesty that we can’t but naturally we have to soldier on with what we’ve come to believe in and that’s you lot cutting down on CO2.

    • Gareth,
      I thought that it was mostly liberals who held the position that there was a connection between autism and inoculations. At least that’s been my experience.

    • @GP

      Trump would doubtless have been ridiculed when the drug Thalidomide was used to cure morning sickness in pregnant women. Had he objected to it’s use.

      • Ferdberple states “There is no respected study”

        I suppose that elegantly sums up why this march is taking place. Every authority on Autism across the world points out that vaccines are not related to autism, that autism can be detected at a very early stage and is likely to be related to genetics. But one one sweeping statement dismisses the sums of scientific knowledge with the idea of “Well, you never know” , something which can be also app lead to the rerun of Elvis Presley in a UFO.

        Clyde Spencer, belief in a connection between autism and vaccination is not related to political belief, only ignorance. ( Trump is not a lefty)

        For all you supporters of the Autism/Vaccination link, read this. Then go to all the Autism support sites, then try all the Paediatric Autism studies.
        http://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/

      • And if he still claimed Thalidomide was not connected with birth defects, he would be ridiculed now. That in essence is what he is doing. He is ignoring mountains of evidence.

      • Gareth,

        Link to the actual large scale, long term, double-blind tests, for any given vaccine, or there’s really no point in pretending this is about science . . The very fact that you want to discuss vaccines, in a generic sense, demonstrates how far from actual scientific evidence the whole “debate” has been dragged.

        Prescription drugs are treated far more scientifically, and an educated person would prolly laugh if you linked to some talk-talk “debunking” any concerns about injecting all little kids with a wide array of them . . just to be sure ; )

    • Why am I not surprised you are spewing this nonsense. There are literally 100s of studies showing problems with the MMR vaccine as well as others.

      • The large scale studies I have seen, found no difference in autism rates among those who received MMR and those who did not even amongst populations at higher risk for autism (family member with the disorder).(N~100,000)

      • “Maybe you would like to read what the Autism society say, or are they in on the plot as well?”

        Anyone can call their organization anything they want to, Gareth. Have you noticed mass media corps touting their new “fake news” rating systems . . Couldn’t possibly be “in on the plot”, you figure? ; )

      • And this post is about ‘March for Science’ . . which “debunks” any silly notions about anyone involved being interested in anything but supporting scientific research, right?

    • “a President who suspects a links between Autism and inoculations is extremely worrying. There is no respected study which supports such a belief”

      you should google “william thompson cdc vaccine”, he, as lead author to a cdc study has confessed that he manipulated data to hide the finding that vaccines did cause autism.
      Is a “respected” study one where data is manipulated to change the finding? sounds a bit like the “respected” study that hid the decline. A “respected” study is not a thing, there is only one that is good or one that is bad.

      • The vast majority of respected studies state that there is no connection, despite extensive and widespread studies in many countries. I would also add that you need to revisit the CDC issue.

      • “The vast majority of respected studies state that there is no connection”
        so what about the other respected studies that find a connection.

        99 studies could not locate my keys in the pond.
        1 study located my keys in the pond.

        where are my keys? according to you, not in the pond.

      • “I would also add that you need to revisit the CDC issue.”

        you said nothing.

        latest is no change, he still stands by his confession that he manipulated the data to hide the autism link. if the guy that wrote the CDC study is telling you that, why don’t you believe him?

      • “The vast majority of respected studies state that there is no connection”

        And the vast majority of respected studies said stomach ulcers were caused by stress, not infection.

        I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but it would hardly be the first time that the majority of scientists were wrong. Science is not a popularity contest, nor is scientific argument-by-authority particularly convincing.

    • In the 1990’s, I could find people who would debate the science of catastrophic climate change. It was fun, because the debate always revealed the fallacies of their arguments. Invariably, they had to retreat to invoking authority and the precautionary principle. Then I would point out all the many times that using the precautionary principle did a tremendous amount of harm, making it self-contradictory. Therefore, it was neither a principle nor precautionary.

      Occasionally I would be put off by someone referencing a new study that they claimed proved their point. I would have to then find the study in question and go through it, usually finding that it didn’t support their claims at all, or was so full of caveats, assumptions and unknown variables that it hardly qualified as science.

      Many science minded people were doing the same thing. That is why there are no debates about the science today. That is why they march, call names and invoke authority. They cannot win with science, because science is about truth and the truth does not support their position. That is why they are all into politics, where spin is king and vilifying the competition is considered the best way to win an argument.

  7. My observations after recovering from intense nausea: 1. Only Socialist, anarchists, and Dumbocrats are represented in the “March for Fake Science” today. 2. No rational Climate “Scientists” were represented in speeches. 3. Trump bashing seemed to be the MAIN purpose of the “March for Fake Science” today. The 97% Consensus was widely acknowledged today – 97% of the people represented the most Ignorant of our population. 4. The “March for Fake Science” today is the most obvious indication of the Failure of Public Education, from K-College.

    • Ironically, the Trump-Bashing in this march may tip Trump more to the side of climate skeptics, and away from the influence of Ivanka Trump who is trying to influence her father to honor the Paris Agreement.

      • Noaa,

        I’m not sure how much she really is trying to influence him and how much she wants to be thought doing so, so as not to lose all her liberal friends in Manhattan.

  8. Wow, there must be like at least 200 or 300 people there. I watched some of the live stream and enjoyed the chattering teeth, which seems to be proof of the Gored effect.

    • I suspect that being in the public eye, they knew they had better not dress appropriately for the actual weather conditions. What stalwarts for climate change! LOL

      (And in the future it should only get better.)

  9. “Not even H….. doubted climate change”
    Until his forces encountered the Russian winter (it’s always blo.dy cold), but by then it was too late

    • One reason Stalin trusted H!tler not to attack him before the USSR was ready to invade the Reich was that the Germans hadn’t laid up a supply of winter clothing or cold weather lubricants for weapons and vehicles. But that was not because they weren’t planning to invade the Soviet Union, but because H!tler thought that Blitzkrieg meant his forces would be in Moscow before winter.

      But so much of their transport was horse-drawn, and their motor vehicles so incapable of dealing with mud, that the 20th century Germans advanced at about the same pace as the 19th century French. They also diluted their strength in the center with attacks north toward Leningrad and south into the Ukraine, and diverted their Panzer armies south as well instead of staying on the road to Moscow.

      They still might have made it had Stalin not transferred Siberian divisions to the defense of the capital, which he knew he could safely do because his spy in Tokyo Richard Sorge told him about Japanese plans to attack the US.

      H!tler couldn’t have known that the balmy global climate of the 1920s and ’30s was going to end in 1941/42. In 1938, English engineer Callendar thought that man-made CO2 was responsible for this beneficial warming, but realized his mistake when the early ’60s were so cold, despite even higher levels. Then he died.

      • Hitler and Napoleon both invaded Russia on June 22. The results were pretty much the same. They should have waited for a warmer time of year.

      • Dear God Chimp. How do you know all this stuff. Either you are the most intelligent man on earth or you are the best Wikipedia hound on the planet. Amazing.

      • H!tler was also delayed six weeks rescuing the Italians from their military debacle in the Balkans. If he’d have invaded Russia in May rather than June, he might have carried it off.

      • HotScot,

        A misspent youth. And a varied career.

        Ferd,

        The Soviet Belorussian offensive, Operation Bagration, also began on June 22, 1944, taking advantage of D-Day.

        Pat,

        As it turned out, the delay wouldn’t have made much difference. The rasputitsa, spring mud, of 1941 would have made a May or early June slog pretty much impossible anyway. The Wehrmacht needed to wait for the mud to dry.

        Had H!tler concentrated on the central front, he could have gotten to Moscow, but then what? He would have had long exposed flanks vulnerable to counterattack. However had he commandeered motor vehicles from throughout occupied Europe, he could have motorized his infantry and Blitzkrieg might have worked. But at the cost of even greater suffering in France, the Low Countries and Balkans. Plus the civilian vehicles would rapidly have broken down under Ost Front conditions. Russian railroads also had a wider gauge than standard European, so they weren’t as much help as they should have been.

        Since Stalin was planning on attacking H!tler, the Germans would have fared better to wait a year and let the Red Army in, then cut it off. But with Britain uninvadable, H!tler had to attack somebody. He crazily thought that defeating the USSR would bring the UK to the peace table. Then he declared war on the US, because he thought we’d be too busy in the Pacific for a two-front war, and that his subs could starve Britain out as a result. He wasn’t far off, as the “Happy Time” for the U-boats showed.

      • Energy,

        For a Warmunista source, not a bad bio.

        The cooling from the ’40s continued into the ’70s, despite rising CO2, so, had he lived, I suppose that Callendar would have considered his hypothesis well and truly falsified.

      • Many years ago, I met a naturalized American who had been in the German Army on the eastern front. He said what had surprised him the most was that in Russia there were no roads.

      • I read somewhere that many of the people were eager to treat the Germans as liberators. Until the Germans started treating them worse than the Russians did.

        [Much of the Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, parts of Georgia, limited parts of east Poland under USSR rule. Finland always resisted Russian attacks. .mod]

      • Alan,

        Very few paved roads. They were deep mud in spring and fall, hard enough to be passable in later fall but covered by snow in winter.

        Mark,

        Yes, especially in the Baltic States, the parts of Poland and west Ukraine recently overrun by Stalin, and east Ukraine where the famine and forced collectivization had occurred. Belarus maybe a bit less welcoming. H!tler blew the opportunity to get the people on his side. Even so, lots of Baltics, Ukrainians and Russians fought for the Reich.

  10. Here’s the thing I’ve noticed about the so-called climate science backers: They never, ever, actually cite science. Their arguments solely center around shaming and appeal to authority. That’s it. Meanwhile the sceptics are chomping at the bit to discuss actual science. The marchers are not for science, they are for their own politics.

    Btw, I note dinosaurs ruled for almost 200 million years and are currently more popular than ever. As compared to liberal politics…

    • Dinosaurs still rule. There are almost twice as many living avian species (~10,000) as mammalian (~5450). Birds also outnumber all their reptilian kin put together, ie their fellow archosaurs the crocodilians, the lepidosaurs (lizards, snakes and tuataras) and turtles. They’re the most speciose group of tetrapods.

      So dino dominance has been in effect since the Late Triassic, in which epoch sauropodomorphs were already the largest herbivores in many environments. After the Triassic/Jurassic extinction event (~199 Ma), theropods also became the top carnivores in many if not most habitats, and ornithischians the most abundant plant-eaters.

      • The lady with the “Be a Mammal” sign must not know anything at all about paleontology, phylogeny or taxonomy.

        Dinos: Still Dominant After All This Time!

      • I remember reading a science fiction essay many years ago. Poul Anderson asked, “What comes after mammals?”. The editor, John W. Campbell Jr. replied, “Man”.

        “NO, humans are mammals. . Mammals have access to more energy than reptiles, What class of creatures would have more energy than mammals?”
        With the advantage of foresight, Campbell could have seen Robert Bakker’s argument, and replied,
        “Dinosaurs and birds”.

      • Alan,

        But not for the Cretaceous extinction, earth probably would now harbor dinosaurs of human intelligence, whether birds or their maniraptoran kin. It is astonishing what the smartest birds can do with their reptilian brains. Scale that capability up from crow to human or elephant size, and you have one powerful biological computer. Also, they might have evolved mammalian-style neocortices.

        Mammals and our ancestors, the synapsids, switched status during the Mesozoic. In the Permian, last period of the Paleozoic Era, synapsids (the amniote tetrapods previously known as “mammal-like reptiles”) were the dominant land vertebrates. But after the Triassic Period, first of the Mesozoic Era, diapsids, ie “reptiles”, replaced synapsids as top dogs (or dinos). Then we switched again after the K/T mass extinction event, although, as noted, birds still beat mammals in number of species, if not in biomass. We have the whales on our side, and of course the burgeoning human population.

        In some future era, the diapsids might once again rule.

      • I’ve read that birds aren’t descended from dinosaurs, but rather the ancestors of birds shared a common ancestor with the dinosaurs.

  11. Nice to see the young lady to the mid-front has achieved the vulgarity attained by the women’s march.

    Interesting similarity: the women’s march was about feminism, not about women. The science march is about politics, not about science.

    • Michael Mann made an appearance to claim credit for his hockey-stick “analysis.” Denounced the “failed” attempts to refute it. Bill Nye made an appearance, too. The musical entertainment is also pathetic.

  12. The Natural Climate Change Deniers and Junk Science supporters should all stop exhaling 2.3lbs of CO2 per person per day and drop dead, in order to reduce their Carbon footprint! LOL!

  13. Real “Science” makes correct predictions. Mann made cLIEmate change has yet to make any skillful predictions.

    • They predict that if they say the magic words “climate change” in their grant proposals, they’ll get funding. So far those predictions haven’t been falsified, but there’s hope they might be in future.

    • You have to remember that Feynman saw the same cargo cult behaviour in other realms of science and even science text books. He saw it in the risk management approach for the Challenger. The man spent most of life dealing with this BS.

      In my teens as I was choosing my A-levels (Physics, Maths and Further Maths in the end) my mum asked some of the lecturers in Queens University (Belfast) what good books should I read about Physics. She worked in the catering department as a secretary so she got to know all kinds of people. The common answer was to get that book about Feynman that had just come out, Genius by James Gleick.

      It’s funny how it wasn’t a text book or papers. It was a book about a good scientist and his approach. The thing that stayed with me was DISREGARD.

      • The Physics three volume set on Feynman’s physics lectures to a freshman class is also worth reading.
        My dad bought the set, and showed me chapter 22, on Algebra. After reading that chapter , I was astonished at how easy he made elementary Algebra, up to the derivation of
        Euler’s formula e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0.
        I practically cried at the comparison between Feynman’s presentation and that of my high school second year algebra teacher, who made the easy difficult rather than making the difficult easy.

        I also read Gleick’s book, and one item I came away with was Bethe’s ability to rapidly calculate in his head, In Los Alamos, the question of the cube root of 2.25 came up, and Bethe quickly gave the approximation “1.34” I wondered how he did that so fast. I figured that what a genius could calculate quickly, I could calculate slowly. I first thought of Newton’s approximation method using derivatives. I tried that in my head, and got bogged down. I then thought of Cauchy’s inequality theorem, realized that (a + delta)(a – delta) is always less than a^2, and got a better method than Bethe used. Multiply 3 numbers fairly close together to get 2.25, take the average, and round down. I saw 2.25 is the square of 1.5, so three numbers would be 1.5 * 1.5 * 1= 2.25 . The average of the three is (1.5 + 1.5+ 1)/3 = 1.33, which will be a little too high, so a good guess for the cube root is 1.32. The actual cube root, using my online calculator is 1.31037 + So the 1.32 I could calculate quickly in my head was a better approximation than that of the great Bethe.

      • I would have said 2.25^(1/3) = 1.5^(2/3) := 1 + (2/3)*0.5 = 1.33. But, your way worked better in this case.

  14. Off Topic — sorry — but I’m curious about a sliver of news I’ve seen and wanted to know if anyone had first hand accounts. Yesterday, according to about 5 minor news sources, there were blackouts in NY, LA, and SF. Either this has somehow missed making even the local news networks or it was completely fabricated.

    • bad presidents lie
      =============
      if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor
      read my lips, no new taxes
      I did not have sex with that woman

      except maybe for washington, who was one of the first presidents of the US, name a president that didn’t lie.

      • I’ve been reading up on presidential biographies lately. It’s astonishing how history textbooks can make fascinating history seem boring.

        Most texts leave out the story of Washington;s first visit to the Senate to discuss a treaty with the creek nation. He occupied the presiding officer’s chair while Senate President John Adams sat at the desk assigned to the Senate’s secretary. Intimidated by Washington’s presence, senators found it difficult to concentrate on the treaty’s provisions as Adams read them aloud. After hearing the contents of several supporting documents, members decided they needed more time. An angry president spoke for the first time during the proceedings: “This defeats every purpose of my being here!” One source says that in a later private conversation with a member of his staff, Washington said, “I’ll be damned if I ever waste my time going there again.”, ,
        Although he returned two days later to observe the treaty’s approval, he conducted all further treaty business with the Senate in writing.

        As no precedent had been set, Adams thought he ought to keep Washington’s cabinet. He used to get in heated arguments when he would tear off his powdered wig, slam it on the floor, and swear at members of his cabinet.

    • Apparently she never heard of the settled science of stomach ulcers and how the lone “denier” was ridiculed and denied funding for the research that overturned the old model.

    • When you see posters like this, references to a certain 1930’s German and kryptonite you know you are dealing with fools.

    • These are the same people who will defend Obama’s lies because it was necessary to get the legislation passed.

  15. Well they did limit the speakers to a couple minutes each – the only positive thing I heard.
    Last speaker: Christiana Figueres kind of wraps it up as to what this is all about.
    Didn’t allow one skeptical scientist to speak. Same old same old…It figures…

    • I find it interesting that GMU’s geology department organized a field trip for this morning…to Shenandoah Valley to look at geological formations and fossils. One professor sent multiple emails about the trip to her students, but never once made reference to the climate march in class or in emails. No clue about the rest.

      The biology and college of science list servs were rather silent as well. There may have been a single email about a couple of environmentalist clubs organizing rides, but nothing within the last several days. Not exactly pushing the agenda.

      Looks like some people at the university retain some sense…though this post will probably get the lot of them thrown into indoctrination camps.

      • Whoops. Neglected to say: I suppose some people are still capable of studying past and present climate without succumbing to groupthink and/or becoming zealots.

  16. You’ll also notice how these groups all align together with the communists, socialists, anarchists, terrorists, abortionists and feminists. Such a peaceful bunch, and all want our tax money because their ideas will not stand alone or pass the sniff test.

  17. …Wow !! These people are simply insane !! They should not be allowed to walk the streets of America unaccompanied !!

  18. Nature loves CO2. So much so it sucked up 90% of it. Man to the rescue by burning fossil fuels. When that runs out, we can burn limestone which is where 90% of the CO2 has gone. Personally, I’d be in favor of building regulations that require the use of more concrete.

  19. Fox News interviewed William Happer a little while ago about the “March for Science” and Happer said CAGW was a religion not science. Leland Vittert, the Fox host seemed a little taken aback by Happer’s bluntness.

    • I think Happer – maybe it was another non-climate-zombie official, though – was on CNN (up against 3 doomers, of course) and the boat anchoranchor … hostbot cut him off in the middle of a response to one of the clowns’ absurdities. Also of course.

  20. The problem with democracy is that every idiot has an opinion. Me included. Let them have their hissy fit, and they will think they have accomplished something. Monday will be business as usual…The Dr. Man will be back to lying thru his teeth about climate science.

  21. Simon says turn the science integrity issue on its ear.
    Simon says attack the fact checkers of political climate science.
    Simon says repeat next week on another political topic.

  22. “I love science so much I take it up the butt ! ”

    Classic. Must be about the most convincing argument for AGW I have ever heard.

      • Yea, you are definitely correct there. The thing they hate most is being born an American, being relatively wealthy, living in a free market system and maybe having had children. Their carbon footprint keeps them up at night.

  23. If you display a sign that uses vulgarities, you are probably be a science marcher
    If your livelihood depends on government grants, you are probably a science marcher
    If you think silencing the opposing point of view is proper, you are probably a science marcher
    If you think climate model output are facts, you are probably a science marcher
    If you think only your opinion is correct, you are probably a science marcher
    If you flew on a jet to get there and then carry a sign denouncing fossil fuel use, you are probably a science marcher
    If you jet back home feeling that you helped save the Planet, you were definitely a science marcher

  24. These are “scientists?” There is 0.00% chance man would have ever walked on the moon if these “scientists” had worked at NASA. This group looks like a bunch of theater major dropouts that got Ph.D.s is at some liberal arts college in some social “science” like Women’s or Black Studies. The degrees these people hold most likely aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

    • Most of the people that worked at NASA to put a man on the moon were not scientists. They were engineers.

      • co2islife – while I think your statement (“I consider Engineers scientists”) was meant as a compliment, today’s “March for Science” makes this engineer less than happy with the comparison. Yes, we take a lot of science courses to become engineers, but then we break off and become a lot more practical.

      • Von Braun’s PhD was in physics, but obviously his career was more as a rocket engineer than physicist.

        Pickering, JPL director during the moon program, was also a physicist rather than an aeronautical or aerospace engineer. Born in New Zealand, his PhD was from Caltech. But he too worked largely as an engineer, in his case EE involved with rocket telemetry.

        Debus, first director of the Kennedy Space Center, however had a German PhD in EE rather than physics.

      • James R van Gaasbeek April 22, 2017 at 12:33 pm

        Applied scientists working in private enterprise aren’t all that different from engineers.

        The “scientists” who threaten the world are the bureaucrats who “work” for government and the drones who publish worse than worthless “research” papers in academia.

      • “Your opinion would be welcomed by the “sanitation engineers” employed in my city.”

        An engineer friend of mine, who looked after the electrical installations at sewage works, used to say: “It may be S.H.ONE.T to you but it is my bread and butter!”

      • The difference between a scientist and an engineer is that the aim of the scientist is to understand and verify the theory, but the engineer simply wishes to make the contraption work. There is a lot of overlap between these two roles; however they are not exactly the same.

      • Another difference is engineers need to be sure they are right. People can be hurt or die if they are not. And unlike climate scientists, engineers can be held personally liable for their mistakes.

    • What makes you think that there are very many in the group with a Ph.D.? Even Nye doesn’t have one.

    • They’ll do anything to save the planet except study science. As a retired geology professor I know the type well. “I want to save the Earth they say.” I ask, “How are your math skills?” “I don’t do math.” “How about chemistry and physics and biology?” “I didn’t want to dissect frogs and chem and physics are too hard so I didn’t take them in high school.” But I really, really want to stop climate change and save the planet. Riiiiight!

      • “Everybody wants to save the planet but no one wants to help Mom with the dishes.”

        They want to be seen as important, compassionate, big-picture system thinkers.

        “Generally the better educated are more prone to irrational political opinions and political hysteria than the worse educated far from power. Why? In the field of political opinion they are more driven by fashion, a gang mentality, and the desire to pose about moral and political questions all of which exacerbate cognitive biases, encourage groupthink, and reduce accuracy.”

  25. These pictures are heavily dominated by Women. Where are they coming from? What kinds of “science” are they getting degrees in? The number of women in the “hard” sciences simply aren’t there in the proportion represented in those photos. My bet is those are largely healthcare workers and “social” scientists. Once again, you won’t be landing a man on the moon with that bunch.

    Female Engineering Students
    The percentage of women receiving engineering degrees
    remained about the same as in the previous few years. Females
    accounted for 18.4 percent of bachelor’s degrees, up slightly from
    18.1 percent in 2010. The percentage of master’s degrees awarded
    to women remained unchanged at 22.6 percent; while that of
    doctoral degrees decreased about 1 percent from 22.9 percent
    in 2010 to 21.8 percent in 2011. The proportion of engineering
    degrees awarded to females should remain stable over the next
    few years, since women represent 18.2 percent of all bachelor
    enrollees, 22.7 percent of master’s enrollees, and 21.6 percent of
    doctoral enrollees.
    https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/11EngineeringbytheNumbersPart1.pdf

    • co2islife
      “These pictures are heavily dominated by Women. Where are they coming from? What kinds of “science” are they getting degrees in? ”

      What a total twat of a comment. Could you make a more appallingly sexist generalisation. Let’s leave the real science to the men shall we? Woman are best at home cooking them dinner are they?
      Maybe the female scientists are more concerned about the thug like behaviour of Trump and his team towards science and all scientists? Why don’t you crawl back into the cave you came from….

      • There is nothing sexists with my comment at all. I simply pointed out the huge disparity of the photos and the reality of hard science lacking women. Silicon Valley has the same problem. If you take a random scientific poll of the hard sciences, you won’t find many women. Take a scientific survey of patents and new discoveries and you won’t find many women. Call it sexist all you want, I’m simply referring to objective facts. Facts you may not like, but facts all the same. Care to identify a survey of hard science fields that claims there are abundant women in those fields?

      • Simon,

        The ‘Stalin’s Birthday Parade’ organizers declared participants would be “Anyone who believes in empirical science. That’s it. That’s the only requirement.” co2islife provided empirical data. That’s it. Yet, when presented with empirical data you apparently didn’t ‘like’, you dive off into irrational, primitive brain, foul mouthed accusations, name calling and personal attacks.

        As such, you represent the socialist non-science marchers perfectly……

      • @Simon

        Could you contort a factual observation into yet another slur any less successfully?

        Sticks and stones and all that.

        Seriously, it’s the usual leftist tactic of branding Brexit voters racist simply because we don’t like the idea of being another puppet of a dysfunctional organisation.

      • Simon,

        I see you study demography as well as climate science or should that say “as bad as”.

        The raw numbers are what they are, that they don’t align with your political agenda is irrelevant!

      • “These pictures are heavily dominated by Women. Where are they coming from? What kinds of “science” are they getting degrees in? ”

        Simon, the same question occurred to me as I was looking at the pictures. I am a woman engineer. Not many women go into science or engineering. Actually, not many men go into science or engineering.

        I would suggest that the people we see marching are most probably not scientists or engineers, but are instead simple political activists who don’t even know what order-of-magnitude means, and have probably never even taken a science class.

        And President Trump has every right to assure that tax money, public money, is used in a reasonable manner, especially in regard to research done to increase our industrial and energy strength. If we have been wasting money on ineffective research, it should be cut off, and directed towards more useful studies.

    • “These pictures are heavily dominated by Women.”
      Mostly because based on the past several years of “astroturfed” protests by democrats, they are probably paid protesters.

      • I would love to see some of the interviews. I would love to see someone asked a simple Math Question like what is the 1st Derivative of X^2.

      • I just watched Fox’s Jessie Watters ask two young females what they thought was more dangerous, climate change or terrorism. They both answered climate change.

    • Simon: I don’t find that statement offensive at all. In spite of feminists demanding women “be scientists or else”, I have not found that women go into science as often as men. The possible exception is medicine (considering I have read of doctors who don’t like blood and never took anatomy, that could be part of the reason), and to be brutally honest, I rarely like female doctors (my husband’s PA is an exception, but she’s not like other girls). I refuse to go to most female doctors. There’s nothing sexist about the statement. It reflects reality. The fact that Leftists and Feminists live in a fanatasy world refusing to acknowledge reality does not change reality. Just makes them look very, very foolish.

      • Thanks Sheri, appreciate the comment. I consider my Mother to be the ideal Feminist, and she would never associate with the people that dominate feminism today, and she never used her sex as a crutch.

      • Until I hear those demanding parity of gender representation for non-desirable occupations I am just going to assume they’re full of the stuff that they would never shovel as a job.

    • This female scientist was too smart to associate herself with this nonsense. Personally, I do not think one even needs to consider stats to realize that many (if not most) of the women pictured and/or attending do not actually have science degrees. Just look at their presentation and claims. I suspect the majority of male attendees are also not scientists, based on similar evidence.

      Perhaps I am giving the community too much credit. Consider the 97%…

      • Pretty much any left wing gathering is suspect. They marketed the event as an Anti-Trump rally.

      • If you count “political science” as a science then they are all scientists. Of course that is like asking a realist “if you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” To a realist the answer is 4 because a tail is not a leg. Likewise a political scientist is not really a scientist (though some of my colleagues in the polysci department might take exception.

        My rule of thumb is “if it has the word science in the title of the field, there is very little science in the content of the field!”

      • My rule of thumb is that when you use social as a modifier it effectively inverts the thing being modified.
        Social justice is the same as not justice.
        I wonder what happens if you combine my rule of thumb with Owen’s and apply them both to “social science”?

    • That is actually an impressive change, When I graduated from Engineering (half a century ago) there was less than 1% females in all of engineering at my university and none in the civil disciplines. It has changed a lot over the years with females from countries all over the world working in engineering.

      • You are right Wayne, and over half of the women you find in engineering these days wear a hijab.

    • Most of the men I knew at college wished that more women would go into science and engineering. Do you have any idea how hard it was to get a date at most engineering schools? Fortunately for us there was a nursing college just a few blocks away with a population that was almost 100% female, and just as desperate as we were.

  26. The sweet irony that these nut bags are “educating ” the rest of us. Lol. Awesome! !!!

  27. Just in… “Protesters say political decision making must be based upon facts, not on emotions or wishful thinking”. Really?

  28. March for science this weekend and then a climate march next weekend? same thing!? some are so proudly leftist, I hope the world notices, they are all a bunch of hypocrites.

  29. “Britain. The Schrodinger’s Cat of Europe”.

    That’s actually very good.

    Not exactly a protest but certainly witty.

  30. Many of these “scientists” need lessons in sign-making. Many of the signs they’re carrying are unreadable and/or irrelevant platitudes and/or complete gibberish. For people claiming they want to be heard and taken seriously, they seem unable to present any cogent thoughts.

  31. So March for Science got adjusted to late April.
    I guess that’s par for the course with global warmers.

  32. Seems to me there is a tremendous amount of good will and potential here.
    Deploring or mocking these people is unproductive.
    They need a coherent vision they can endorse and work towards. It is the job of politics to get this energy focused in the right direction. Were there any politicians of note involved in DC or elsewhere?

    • These people are hopeless. Unreachable. They Believe, and that’s it. They aren’t interested in anything that might threaten that Belief.

    • The placards show that that supporting Science means that they are not alone in their arbitrary choices of what is right or wrong. I’m not sure that many in the community realise that science is a method that requires the individual to be passionate enough to continue with the effort but the self discipline to come to a conclusion ignorant of what their gut feel is.

    • As someone who grew up in the D.C. area, very few people who participate in these types of “protests” actually want to do anything that would help people. They just want to lecture people about how wonderful and superior the protestors are, and how everyone should do what the virtue-signalers want. The only goodwill they have is for themselves. It is the rare protest or rally that involves people who are willing to do the dirty work or who realize what the consequences of their agenda will be. Nice thought, but most people just want to be able to punch their “I’m a good person” card.

      Case in point: How many “Women’s March” attendees do you think are currently taking concrete actions that will positively help women? How many are regularly visiting shelters for women who are homeless or victims of domestic abuse? How many are demanding that “women’s health clinics” run by multi-million dollar organizations purchase mammogram machines? How many are advocating for school choice, allowing disadvantaged girls to escape sub-standard schools and get a decent education? How many are mentoring girls from poor communities, encouraging them to take charge of their lives and make something of themselves?

      Heck, how many of them are acknowledging that women can think and believe different things?

    • Good will? I don’t see any? All I see is a hatred towards anyone who disagrees with them.
      As to potential, not a lot of that in evidence either.

  33. Tiresome meme; make a non existent problem and then protest about it to feel good about yourself.

  34. Sign in main picture Coal=Acid Rain
    The 80s is calling they want there falsified environmental scare meme back.

  35. So far it looks like Woodstock, I’m sure there will,be plenty of entertainingly silly memes and moments. Readers are invited to share what they find elsewhere.” ~WUWT

    Why certainly. Since you all asked. I have quite an Earth Day present for the Cannabis Generation lined up today! It will just take a few hours.

    It will be well worth the wait.

    You guys are going to love me.

  36. Idiocracy is now a reality. If it really was a march for science, placards like these might have been seen:

    §1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

    §2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

    §3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

    §4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

    §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

    §6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

    §7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept, there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

    §8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

    §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

    §10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

    §11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

    (For a full account with definitions and explanation see: https://principlesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/the-principles-of-science-v7-5 )

    Yeah – I know – too boring.

    • Etymology[edit]
      The term utopia was coined from Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean.
      The word comes from Greek: οὐ (“not”) and τόπος (“place”) and means “no-place”, and strictly describes any non-existent society ‘described in considerable detail’. However, in standard usage, the word’s meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.[2] Eutopia, derived from Greek εὖ (“good” or “well”) and τόπος (“place”), means “good place”, and is strictly speaking the correct term to describe a positive utopia. In English, eutopia and utopia are homophonous, which may have given rise to the change in meaning.[2][3]

      Wikipedia

      • Erasmus’ “Nowhere” should be spelled “Outopia” or “Oytopia”, since the Greek letter upsilon is often transliterated as “y”, because of its shape rather than its sound.

    • It was the rather rare lab coats that were white hot. Those scientists (or their wives) must be really good at getting them regularly washed.

      Yes, Simon, that was for you !

  37. No matter what the cause it’s always the hippie crowd, they must be so cheap they do it for free.

  38. This administration change happened not a moment too soon. This gives a look at the magnitude of the damage done to science, civilization, democracy, education, the economy, everything. A new institutional racism and hatred against those of European extraction – largely by self-loathing lefty members of the same stock is a phenomenon I have begun thinking about for a book on this topic. The perpetrators of this are too zealous to recognize that this dedication and “sevice” to their “clients” of other origins is a convoluted form of old fashion racism toward them. I won’t go into this further here, except to say I recognize the phenomenon from 50yrs ago when well meaning missionaries in Africa sought to “help” people that weren’t asking for help, nor were they asked what their needs were. This was decided for them by patriarchal/matriarchal do gooders. Anyway I despair that such deep pathologies developed over the past couple of decades may take more than a generation to fix.

    • But these are the Muddle Ages.
      [Better the Muddle Ages than Multi-Muddled Modeled Ages. .mod]

  39. Trump must be wondering why everyone thinks he controls science. I wonder which science these people think is being denied? They seem to do a pretty good job of denying the fact of (non-existent) global warming.

  40. Question to the marchers… Please identify, specifically, which of the 100’s of climate models over the past 20 years have been shown to be accurate. I’ll wait… Still waiting…

  41. Yeah, those marchers are are real science-y, aren’t they.

    They believe in all the REALLY scientific, reality-grounded ideas that Lefties embrace, such as homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, Pyramid Power, Gaia, ESP, auras, spoon-bending psychics, Freudianism, feng shui, rolfing, harmonic convergence, “organic” foods, re-incarnation, astral projection, herbalism, telekinesis, aromatherapy, ouija boards, seances, chakras, channeling, GMO’s as Frankenfood, wymyn’s way of knowing, megavitamins, colonics, and—-most of all and especially—-the Nostrum of all Nostrums: Scientific Socialism.

    Funny how progs can jeer at some conservatives for not believing Darwinism, yet promote a society that’s organized , IOW through “Intelligence by Design”. Funnier still their belief that they can change human nature by forcing people to behave as they would dictate.

    Funniest of all that they claim AGW is “settled science” while at the same telling us that objective truth is a white patriarchal male conspiracy.

  42. Yeah, the marchers are real “science-y”, aren’t they..

    They believe in all the REALLY scientific, reality-grounded ideas that Lefties embrace, such as homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, Pyramid Power, Gaia, ESP, auras, spoon-bending psychics, Freudianism, feng shui, rolfing, harmonic convergence, astrology, “organic” foods, re-incarnation, herbalism, telekinesis, aromatherapy, ouija boards, seances, chakras, channeling, GMO’s as Frankenfood, wymyn’s way of knowing, megavitamins, colonics, and—-most of all and especially—-the Nostrum of all Nostrums: Scientific Socialism.

    Funny how progs can jeer at some conservatives for not accepting Darwinism, while they themselves promote a society that’s re-organized by forcibly changing behavior and human nature itself, in other words through “Intelligence by Design.”

    Funniest of all? That they can claim AGW is “settled science”, while at the same time arguing objective facts and truths are merely cultural artifacts imposed by a white male patriarchy.

    • Political SCIENCE-Y. They have heard of “science” but have never actually done any or studied any.

    • Don’t forget, they are anti-Darwin themselves. No change allowed. No survival of the fittest. Any and all change is unnatural and the fault of man. Look to your betters for salvation…

      I think I will stick with the salvation celebrated this past Sunday.

      • Don’t worry… Darwinism will winnow many of the zealots from the gene pool. I look forward to many more Darwin Award contenders from this lot.

  43. I think climate change is real.
    I don’t think it will kill me or my kids. So I am a denier.
    I think the planet has warmed, is warming and might even continue to warm.
    I am not confident that CO2 is the main driver. So I am a denier.
    I think most scientist are conscientious, honest, truth seekers.
    But some may be money hungry glory hunters and the sceptics should be heard. So I am a denier.
    One sign said god hates me.
    The preachers have always told me that god loves me, sinner that I am.
    If there is some logic in this, I cannot find it

    • I’m willing to bet that the person holding the “God hates Deniers” sign is an atheist. For many atheists, their knowledge of the Bible begins and ends with being able to spell it correctly most of the time.

  44. I like the tick sign. Guess the didn’t read the follow up that in the study region, temps averaged lower. Great science done by activists. Conformation bias anyone?

  45. Time to renew my subscription to SETI…clearly Terrestrial Intelligence belongs in the Rare Earths category! (sic)

  46. Should anyone care, here is an article about it from Seth Borenstein. No mention of the dinosaur.

  47. Here’s what I can’t understand. If I understand the “consensus”:
    – Trump and his supporters are Nazis
    – They are anti science
    – They had prior warning of locations where scientists and their supporters would assemble.

    Where are the people dressed in black, to bash the scientists with iron bars and pepper spray them? Isn’t that precisely what a fascist would do?

    • Andrew

      Where are the people dressed in black, to bash the scientists with iron bars and pepper spray them? Isn’t that precisely what a fascist would do?

      Why do you ask? The people who ARE in black skin-tight armor, with their faces disguised and pepper-spraying (and attacking and beating their enemy with iron pipes and knives) are the liberal socialists and green-enviro’s up in the Berkeley Campus, viciously attacking every conservative voice who wishes to speak peacefully and freely in public.

  48. The picture about disaster movies: “Megafault” had a scientist whom they listened to all the way through the movie—and it was a GIRL! They neglect to mention it’s usually the GOVERNMENT ignoring the scientist. Guess that’s too complex for their tiny little minds.

  49. 2+2=4! Presumably this is a shot of the educational workshop stuff promised. I guess you start with basics to see what level you are dealing with.

  50. Ironic the one about every disaster movie starts with a scientist being ignored.

    The climatistas are fiercely ignoring actual scientists who can do things like multiple regression and data analysis – showing CO2 is not the most significant variable but one of the smaller ones.

    And they refuse to discuss, debate, fund or investigate such things.

    You could get a pretty fine disaster movie plot out of this. Maybe call it “Blackout”.

    • The President of the USA is a good guy in almost every movie. They seem to be selective about when Hollywood should be relied-on.

  51. I watched the one in Melbourne – with my “Climate Hoax” t-shirt on. They seemed to be mostly elderly. Many of the young females were wearing pink hats. None of them look like they understood what the “scientific method” was all about.

  52. Science is not the square root of -1. My calculator says that’s an invalid input.
    I think I’m missing something.

      • The square root of negative 1 actually comes up in practical equations. When it does, you can be sure that an oscillating sine or cosine factor is involved.

    • There was a young man of Nepal…

      (You should all know it really – fundamental mathematics !)

      • And yet advanced electronics is very hard to do without that square root of -1. Some of the functions are a pain in the tail to do in trig functions, but work out a charm with complex numbers.

      • Only imaginary in the sense of being 100% abstract. You can hold up an apple and say “This is 1 apple.” Holding up i apples, on the other hand…

      • Hey dred! If you hold an empty left hand, that hand has 0 apples. If you then hold out your right hand with an apple in it, then that hand has 1 apple. But if you hold out your OTHER hand — well, that’s the hand that has i apples in it.

        Simple really…

  53. I’m a one hit wonder female with only one published (but reproducible and demonstrated robust results) piece of research to my name. Yet this march embarrasses the hell out of me! Come on women, get a frickin brain! That women are in this march makes me think we have a loooooong way to go before women are truly educated enough to be real scientists.

    • Pamela,
      The ones in the march probably do not have a science degree, but rather a degree that ends in the word science or study. The women I know who work as scientists are mostly apolitical (with the exception of a couple of environmental biologists – they act like evangelists, but that isn’t limited to the women, that field just seems to attract a large number of political activists).

  54. I am pretty sure that there is a concensus among philosophers of at least 97% that the epistemic certainty of a climate model prediction is quite a bit lower than the epistemic certainty of 2+2=4.

  55. Who exactly are the “deniers” when it comes to science when it comes to the beginning of life and gender? Many of these same people and the politicians they support.
    I was caught-up on a Facebook discussion the other day concerning the chlorination of drinking water at a nearby utility. The anti-Trump sentiment was strong with the people who thought water utilities were killing us. Some of the gems included people not knowing the difference between chlorine and chromium, people claiming Europe and Canada don’t do this, people claiming this is all new and due to the fact that Trump has eliminated the EPA, etc. When politics and hatred blind people, it’s impossible to get through.

    • The beginning of life? Some 3 billion years ago you mean? Or do you mean conception? In that case noone ever denied a fetus is ALIVE. But that is true with a flower as well. The question is at which point is it A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL. For which science says we don´t really know, philosofical question, but at least before it has a brain it can have no form of conscience which is normally a criterium for being considered human.

    • That chlorination is one of the reasons why their drinking water isn’t constantly giving them cholera, dysentery, or other generally nasty waterborne diseases. ;|

  56. BEST EARTH DAY BON FIRE EVER! This year the neighbors blocked all routes the fire department could have used. Big improvement over last year. Anyway, we built a foundation of 6 fiberglass boats, surrounded with 250 pallets, topped with over 300 tires, and just over 40 cubic yards of wet leaves. Lost count at 42 plastic barrels of used motor oil. Three barrels of diesel poured over the whole thing like syrup over a sundae. Then flares tossed in from all directions. It was a beautiful thing. Fire was at least 300 feet in the air, smoke ten times that high. Lasted about 4 hours, best Earth Day Bon Fire ever.

  57. All those years I have been a scientist when I really should have been a……………DANCER!

    • Reminds me of the movie “Flashdance”. I saw an hilarious takeoff on that movie staring Rodney Dangerfield as a ballet dancer who wanted to be a welder.

  58. Hopefully this time they didn’t pepper spray anyone . Mann & Nye a two for one science comedy act . Guess they rode their bikes to get there too .
    Climate changes ,it’s warming and thankfully plants , trees and humans will enjoy the ride till Time magazine announces the next global cooling scare .
    Someone needs to model the relationship between exaggerated global warming fear mongering and the cash being pumped into it . Take out the money and the earth magically starts to cool .

  59. Eco-Marxists rely upon sophistry and confabulation as much as they do upon the reliable services of the propaganda organ grinder masquerading as the Fourth Estate. Their preferred lingua franca routinely hijacks the English language. “Climate change,” “civil society,” or “march for science,” all having their unique definitions that by design possess no meaningful relationship to the English words used or indeed to common understanding. Another Leftist stealthy deception tool. Never, never engage in a conversation with anyone until they define their terms.

  60. It would have been nice to see a counterprotestor holding up that iconic CMIP5 climate model failure graph, with the caption, “2 + 2 = 5. And it’s even closer to 5 than we’d previously thought!”

    I do like the comment from Briggs though – “I still say the DOD was wrong to reject my proposal to weaponize the female protester voice”.
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/21486/

  61. I wonder how much trash these activists left behind when the march was over. I bet sanitation workers had to spend hours picking up all their signs and glitter.

    • I also wonder how they powered that stage and all the equipment used during the speeches and entertainment.

      • Indeed, didn’t see a single portable solar panel or wind turbine anywhere. Not even exercise bikes hooked up to generators.

        Guess they, *gulp*, plugged into the DC grid? Nah, couldn’t be! …Right?

  62. “So far it looks like Woodstock, I’m sure there will,be plenty of entertainingly silly memes and moments. Readers are invited to share what they find elsewhere.”

    As promised, my big and much anticipated gift to the Baby Boomers for this Earth Day of 2017:

    Earth Day 1970.

    1. Legislation passed suddenly to reduce emissions 90% (from pre-controlled)
    2. No solid science to back up the need for the actions
    3. Solutions are going to cost “tens of billions”
    4. Car makers concerned about the expense, loss of function, and extremely high temperatures from proposed solutions are successfully portrayed as arrogant polluters
    5. Benefits of reducing emissions are estimated by gov’t agencies who claim thousands of lives will be saved, but without any scientific basis at the time
    6. Entire engines must be restricted and tampered with to fit the solution
    7. Car makers pressured and yield to starry eyed young voters, realizing that they could not even attempt to explain
    8. The lesson learned is that companies are polluters who will only solve problems if pressured and forced by legislators, backed by youthful environmentalists

    So in reality the people you see in that march are just getting an ethical rush from whipping the nasty companies into compliance and regulation. And politicians and the EPA are there to help with the science of the social cost of emissions. See how useful the Counter Culture can make itself. See how liberated they all are.

    A little history.

    • And those were days when pollution was a problem, a serious problem. It’s not anymore — at least in the US.

      When CO2 is considered a pollutant, science has lost the plot.

    • Nevertheless, it was Earth Day in 1970 when Congress enacted emissions reductions of 90% across the board, with promises of more sweeping emissions legislation to follow — and from the sources I have, there was no solid science to back up the need for these sudden, massive reductions. It was assertedthat emissions as they were harmed human health. Remember, people here are arguing that the process matters.

      But the carbon monoxide emissions had already been reduced to a shadow of their former levels (1/4) and HCs were already very very low. The expenses and inefficiencies that were unilaterally imposed costed billions of dollars and required the whole engine to operate at a very certain fuel/O2 mixture in order for these 3-way catalytic converters to work.

      So for us 40-somethings wondering “How long has this been going on,” this proves to be a very important context for Earth Day, which has been omitted. Maybe no one else finds this significant at all. Maybe when the Boomers did it it was just the right thing to do, because it was Earth Day, and despite the fact that the science did not yet support this new emissions reductions approach.

      But of this I am very confident: a pattern of behavior that demands massive regulations without any real science can be demonstrated. And I also am confident that I can demonstrate that naturally occurring NO2 is created by lightning worldwide. And that it is beneficial to plants. But the point is, no one ever questions it, and no one ever looks back, once the EPA and governments declare a pollutant.

      So these kids are just following exactly the same template the Cannabis Generation did. They just take it on belief that the problem is dire, and industry must be punished and deformed to fit the EPAs demands. And to this day, the Cannabis Generation pathologically hates nitrogen, NO2, N2O and nitrogen fertilizers. Can’t we even have a fair trial?

  63. The photo with thirteen women standing under the sign, “500 Women Scientists, Boulder” says it all…

  64. Because everything is relative, googled news to check the temperature. So to say. The march for science had the fifth place. But among the top ten was also good news of Labradoodle Cooper reunited with owner after boarding wrong flight http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39675233
    A couple of hours later both dropped into old news. Oh well.

  65. It’s always refreshing, somehow, in the Spring to see Juvenile Leninites in the wild worshipping their cute second grade level signs. Reminds one of Earth Day bonfires (which is where all those signs end up) used for grilling free range cockroaches.

  66. Along with Mann and Nye I’m not sure the organizers of this march understand the issue. They should as they are obviously above average intelligence.

    We all understand the science, the issue is AGW’s magnitude. To suggest people actually deny science is rather strange and really has no place in the debate.

    I think it’s well understood adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the ERL (Effective Radiation Level) to a colder level thus disturbing the equilibrium where outgoing terrestrial longwave infrared radiation balances incoming solar shortwave IR. The accepted math yields a forcing calculation of 3.7 watts/meter squared per atmospheric doubling of CO2 (560ppm) from pre-industrial ice core calculated levels (280ppm) which translates to an estimated increase of +1 degree C to the surface mean temperature.

    To the extent this “increase” can actually change the climate is where the science ends and the supposition begins.

    Where the supposed concern kicks in is the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis. The IPCC endorsed numerically modeled temperature projections to 2100 include an assumed feedback response over and above the “known” effect of CO2 (~+1C per doubling of concentration) due to increased water vapour from the Anthro CO2 warming. Water vapour is the most abundant and forceful ‘greenhouse’ gas in the atmosphere, ergo even more greenhouse warming, supposedly two or three times as much as the original increase in CO2. The higher estimates of climate sensitivity, the origin of the catastrophic scenarios thus the need to mitigate, are based on the the water vapor feedback/amplification “triggered” by AGW.

    However, there are uncertainties that always go unmentioned in mainstream media.

    More water vapor from increased evaporation (itself a profound cooling effect) means more daylight clouds in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming solar while shading the surface, thus a significant cooling effect to counter the supposed AGW impact.

    The whole issue is has been distorted. There is no denial of the science.

    • The sun started out 4.6 billion years ago only about 70% as luminous as it is now, and has been warming at a roughly constant rate ever since. Despite that fact, there have been liquid oceans and life on earth for at least 4 billion years. Obviously the water vapor feedback is both large and NEGATIVE, else our oceans would have been frozen solid 4.6 billion year ago, or would have evaporated away by now, as they did on Venus.

      • My understanding is that Venus never cooled enough for water vapor to condense in the first place.

  67. From an article this Sunday morning:
    “Lovers of science got their day in the rain Saturday as they rallied around their passions, delivering applause for the technology that brought their smart phones…”

    So I ask how much government funding went into development of their smart phones? I suspect the answer is very little (I would accept evidence to the contrary). The point being that technological advances do not need government funding, they just have to be profitable.

  68. Ask each one of these looneys if they know the carbon footprint that frenzy generates. If he doesn’t know he’s an idiot looney, if he knows tell him he shouldn’t bother because there is no CAGW.

    • Agree. If they really gave a hoot, they’d use GoTo Meeting – or any of a number of such applications that are available now.

  69. What a dismal failure the march turned out to be. The NY Times put it way down the bottom of its web site and I can’t find it on El WaPo at all.

    That’s got to sting!

  70. I didn’t go, and I don’t support the premise of this march. Does that make me anti-science? Do I have to stop practicing science, now that it belongs to the Left?

    Will I be banished to a place where real science doesn’t work, and will I be able to hover off the ground, ignoring the laws of gravity?

    Denier John

  71. This is an odd debate where both sides hurl the identical accusation at eachother – “you are the deniers of science!”

    Warmists accuse AGW-skeptics of refusing to fall into line with the authoritarian argument that earth’s climate changed for the first time in the earth’s history due to human’s sinful CO2.

    Skeptics accuse warmists of refusing to think for themselves and denying the realities of climate especially the fact that it is always changing.

    The MSM such as the BBC are idiotically partisan in the “debate” talking openly of Trump as a climate “den1er”. In reality Trump is the first president to take a genuine scientific approach to climate.

    The left hate mob has serious problems with use of language. They seem to think that the word “science” means “belonging to our tribe”.

  72. “At the start of every disaster movie, there’s a scientist being ignored” –
    Yeah, well what did they do for the last 8 years?

      • They ignored the thousands of scientists with a skeptical viewpoint – and what we have is a global economic disaster caused by alarmists pushing green energy, kids suffering from climate paranoia, and an environmental and health nightmare caused by said green energy. What’s it going to take to remove all those wind turbines in 15-20 years?

  73. I say it was nothing more than a classic case for that classic game of ‘spot the (real) scientist’. I estimate conservatively, that at best, maybe 1:1000 of those crowds might have been. The rest just typical ignorant, foul-mouthed lefties there for something (even if they didn’t know what it was) to get upset about and makes lots of noise and even violent threats over…

  74. The funniest thing about these photo’s is simply LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE WEARING! Here it is the 2nd half of April-it’s about 8*C outside and they are all wearing multiple layers of jackets & sweaters. Are they so stupid that they don’t realize the basic contradiction here. YOU CAN’T SAY there is this rapid, out-of-control global warming when it’s cold in April! Are they so stupid that they really think the climate was this cold during the era of the Vikings when they were settling NewFoundland Canada which is currentle below 0 in April? BTW last year it ALSO continued to be cold in April along the entire NE USA and it was even still cold in May, as of May 15 last year it had snowed all over the NE and even as far south as Tennessee!

  75. I decided against going to the Miami March for “Science” as it was threatening rain and I didn’t want my attendance to be mistaken as support. I did watch the C-Span coverage of the Washington rally. It was mostly harmless, feel-good, Kumbaya-type talk about supporting science. Most of the speakers had little iunderstanding about what science is really about or how scientists work. However, one female scientist (a biologist I believe) gave a laundry list of what scientists are: skeptical, questioning, willing to acknowledge uncertainty, etc. All the things climate realists hold to and CAGW promoters don’t. Irony was lost on this crowd.
    As a counterpoint, after coverage of the March C-Span ran a Heritage Institute panel held the night before discussing the anti-science stances taken by the political forces behind the March and other such efforts. The contrast between the mushy emotionalism of the March and the true scholarship of the panel discussion was stark and refreshing.

    Speaking of climate realists, CBS News on Saturday evening actually ran a piece featuring Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute in which he was allowed to make the case for skepticism in climate science. Although they put the term realist in scare quotes and made a point of the fact that Bast isn’t a scientist (Then why not interview Dr. Pielke, Spencer, or Curry?) he was still give air time to make the case against alarmism.
    http://blog.heartland.org/2017/04/cbs-evening-news-runs-story-on-heartland-institute-climate-realist-joe-bast-for-earth-day/

Comments are closed.