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.
SO If You Thought The Above Was Bad! Check out the web link below. You can just search green party goes all in for islam. You will get multiple hits.
America is in desperate trouble.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/u-s-green-party-goes-all-in-for-islam/
Sorry, couldn’t stop my mouse! Language warning.
New York Times is Correct; Bigness is Bad, Time to Break Up the Climate Monopoly
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/new-york-times-is-correct-bigness-is-bad-lets-apply-that-to-the-government/
These people are out of their minds.
I looked at the pictures, and then at the signs and the faces.
Now I need brain bleach.
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.
M. Mann spoke about his hockey stick and got applause from the crowd there.
Wow, I am really worried…
Here is the hockey stick from GISS data (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) …:
The second link shows the “hockey stick”…
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 .
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.
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/
I think 2+2 has been homogenised.
It is now 2+2=3
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?
“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?
When science becomes a political movement democracy loses.
‘2+2=4’ is not a scientific statement. I wonder if these people actually know what the definition of science is?
If this is the number of people who believe that science equals certainty, then “Houston we may have a problem (p < 0.001).
The photo with thirteen women standing under the sign, “500 Women Scientists, Boulder” says it all…
I think 13/500=97%.
Signed,
John Cook
LOL
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Move on
10 + 10 = 100
In base 2, that is a correct statement.
Old: Scientific Socialism
In: Socialistic Sciencism