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.
These sanctimonious liberals really love themselves, don’t they?
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.
On the other hand, they don’t hate any of things enough to actually give them up.
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
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.
I consider Engineers scientists.
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!”
What makes you think that there are very many in the group with a Ph.D.? Even Nye doesn’t have one.
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.
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.”
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.
If you have to shout “science” it isn’t science.
No, indeed. It’s a great 80s rock song.
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….
His comment was based upon statistical facts, not prejudice.
Simon says: Triggered!
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?
Gamma!
Seems one of the marchers thinks he can’t find a female scientist.
?w=720&h=405
—–
Trump and team want to bring integrity and honesty back into science.
The first step with that is to defund most climate-pseudo-scientists, such as the EPA.
They want real worthwhile science, NOT politically based junk-science activism that passes itself off as climate séance.
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.
Facts are racist, sexist, whatever ist.
“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.
No arguement there, people should pursue the careers of their choice, regardless of sex.
I don’t think there were any women in the entire faculty at UofA in my 68 grad class
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.
Louise Rosealma,
These morons make the occupy crowd look like Rhodes Scholars.
They kind of do, don’t they?
And these our the clowns who want to run our lives. No now not ever.
The sweet irony that these nut bags are “educating ” the rest of us. Lol. Awesome! !!!
Just in… “Protesters say political decision making must be based upon facts, not on emotions or wishful thinking”. Really?
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.
Good grief. And not just a march, but a “People’s Climate Mobilization”. They are doubling and tripling down on stupid.
Everyone talks about the weather…but no one does anything about it.
That’s because nobody can do anything about it.
How great is that? How can any group have such a profound lack of self awareness? Unbelievable.
“Britain. The Schrodinger’s Cat of Europe”.
That’s actually very good.
Not exactly a protest but certainly witty.
M Courtney,
Is she suggesting that we can’t tell if Brits are dead or alive?
A Ha!
This is actually a case when “think outside the box” is relevant.
Well, yes, they are.
It was the best one, but when I saw her cat picture it looked like it was sitting on the litter tray. So I thought “Britain shits on Europe” ! MEOWWWW !!
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.
“And whatsoever virtue be represented by the sign, yet must we judge of the sign according to the nature of the sign”
John Hooper, 1843, Lord Bishop of Gloucester
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind
Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign?
So March for Science got adjusted to late April.
I guess that’s par for the course with global warmers.
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.
But, but, they studied Political “Science” so why shouldn’t they control everything
Oh, the ironing!
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?
So true.
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.
Tiresome meme; make a non existent problem and then protest about it to feel good about yourself.
What we need is a march for reproducible results.
Bigotry in Motion
https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2017/04/20/march-for-science-or-against-republican-politicians/#5d689c343458
“A crowd forming in the capital” to denounce yet again Trump and Republicans.
Sign in main picture Coal=Acid Rain
The 80s is calling they want there falsified environmental scare meme back.
Hey, look at all the carbon pollution. ha ha ha
“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.
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.
I´m not sure what you mean.
We got plenty of fiction around us.
But we also got plenty of technology around us proving that science is not utopia.
“I know – too boring” – OK.
But first it’s a checklist – and checklists are useful.
Exactly – its a check list. 🙂
The irony, the hypocrisy…it burns white hot! march for science, give me a break!
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 !
Nice to see a minority group out on a protest march.
A whole bunch of minority groups !