Pew: #climatemarch and #sciencemarch did little to sway public opinion, and may in fact have hurt “the cause”

From the PEW RESEARCH CENTER and the department of unintended consequences, comes this study that suggests the “March for Science” and the “People’s Climate March” didn’t really have any impact when it comes to public opinion. Personally, I think it hurt more than it helped, because as I demonstrated with pictures of the marchers and their signs, a lot of them came off looking like total buffoons.

Americans divided on whether recent science protests will benefit scientists’ causes

More Democrats and younger adults believe the science marches in April will lead to public support for science

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 11, 2017) – Americans are split in their support of recent science marches and whether these events will make a difference, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Some 44% of U.S. adults think the protests, marches, and demonstrations will boost public support for science, while an equal share (44%) believe the protests will make no difference and 7% believe the demonstrations will actually hurt the cause.

The representative survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults finds consistent divides on this topic along political and generational lines. Fully 61% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe the marches will increase public support for science, while only 22% of Republicans and those who lean Republican say the same. Instead, 60% of these Republican supporters think the protests will make no difference, compared with just 32% of Democratic partisans who think that.

Younger adults, ages 18 to 29, are particularly likely to think the marches will increase public support for science (55%). Yet 54% of seniors, ages 65 and older, believe the recent science marches will make no difference to public support for science and just 29% say the marches will help.

“The data speak to the difficulties of making the case for science in the politically polarized environment,” said Cary Funk, lead author and associate director of research at Pew Research Center. “These survey findings show the American public is closely split in their views about the protesters’ goals — a sizeable share of the public is aligned with the protesters’ arguments but a roughly similar share are either opposed to the goals of the protesters or have yet to be convinced.”

These are some of the findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,012 adults, ages 18 or older from May 3-7, 2017. The margin of sampling error based on the full sample is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

###

Read the report: http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/11/americans-divided-on-whether-recent-science-protests-will-benefit-scientists-causes/

Advertisements

160 thoughts on “Pew: #climatemarch and #sciencemarch did little to sway public opinion, and may in fact have hurt “the cause”

  1. “The data speak to the difficulties of making the case for science in the politically polarized environment,” Science isn’t happening in the ‘politically polarized environment’, politics is happening.

    • Agreed. The same democrats who were quite willing to throw science under a bus in order to pretend their political agenda had a founding in science are now marching to save “science”.

      If scientists wanted to save science, they should have remained neutral, objective observers instead of playing politics whilst claiming the authority of science.

      Too late. That bus now left the stand.

      BTW you can not talk “to” a difficulty. You can talk to a person, a dog or even a plant if you are that daft but you talk ABOUT a subject.

      Can we please get rid of this stupid misuse of language that has been in fashion for far too long.

      • From what I have heard, Prince Chuckles talk to plants all the time (promising them he will come back in his afterlife as an unstoppable virus that will wipe out all the “Evil Human” species destroying the Earth !!

      • I talk to my plants, when I water them; sometimes I sing. I imagine that I at least briefly boost the ambient CO2 around them, and any plant of mine needs all the help it can get.

      • Bol#ox Greg:
        One can speak “to” a subject or an issue. Check OED. And don,t pontificate about proper use of the Englis language without checking your facts first. You make yrself look like a fool.

      • I agree with Greg on this one. Speaking to a difficulty is a ridiculous use of the language. We know what it is supposed to mean so why not phrase it correctly? It does not add any new meaning or shade of meaning, it just uses a wrong word and relies on us guessing the right word. Pointless.

      • I agree with Greg on this as well.
        Too many times these days I find myself thinking, what does that mean.
        Might just be advancing age.

      • P.H.I.Z.
        Prejudiced
        Hateful
        Intolerant
        Zealots
        Such is the vocal majority of the AGW crowd.

      • I have to agree with Ross on the ‘speaking to’ issue, if not his tone in stating his position. ‘Speaking to’ a topic is a well established idiom in the English language. According to citations in the online version of the OED this phrasal verb has been in common use since at least 1610 A.D. Before researching this further I was going to assume it was a fairly new introduction into the English language and argue that even so it is well established now in common usage and should be considered correct English. However, now I can make the simpler argument that it is correct English and has been so for over 400 years. Whether you like the construction or not, there is no arguing that it is not correct English.

      • Greg: Not so. Refer to the famous song from Moulin Rouge by Lerner and Low:
        I talk to the trees
        But they don’t listen to me
        I talk to the stars
        But they never hear me
        If you’ve never talked to a tree, shrub, or even a lowly dandelion, you’re not really alive.

      • Nope. If we did that, people might realize what science and language really are and that would ruin the whole plan.

      • I talk to my flowers and my cat.

        At least the flowers don’t get up and leave half way through the coversation.

        ^¿^

      • Much of our language has been corrupted try
        “organic’ vegetables and meat. I have looked as gardener for seed for inorganic vegetables. I hate BS in our language.

    • The whole thing is a “stupid misuse of language” to me . .

      “Asked whether the pro-science demonstrators were driven to act by …”

      Pro-science? Says who? And what does that actually mean?

      “… the Trump administration’s handling of science issues …”

      What the ef are science issues? It’s all mass media buzz-talk to me, from “public support for science” ???? to “Benefit Scientists’ Causes” ???? Rubbery gibberish . .

      • JK: Agree entirely. “Science” doesn’t care whether you are “pro-science” or “anti-science”. Science, i.e., the proper application of the scientific method, just IS. The study of the sex life of the South African ant could be a proper scientific undertaking, just not one that particularly deserves my support.

    • What is destroying science? It is lack of proper observations and lack of proper analysis and interpretation of the natural systems at work. Modern science is about paradigm building (empire building). Just look at all the poor science that has been published about the McMurdo Dry Valleys, in Antarctica, and about one of the planet’s most unbelievable lakes, Lake Vanda, in one of these dry valleys. Why are they dry? Ok, lack of precipitation, due to catabatic and foehn winds, is one factor. However, the other is high heat-flow through the surface of some of the valleys, and, of course, high concentrations of CaCl and MgCl (salts) in the surface sediments. This also accounts for the fact that Lake Vanda has a 4 m thick ice cover, and 0 degrees C in the upper water column, but has a bottom temperature at 70 m water depth of 26 degrees C (a bizarre system). The Dry Valleys of Antarctica are used today as analogues for the dryness and coldness on Mars. Therefore, everything they do there is keyed in to interpret the primitive life there (bacteria, etc.) as being part of that paradigm.

  2. From the sounds of it, 44% of the public have come to believe in a ‘big oil’ conspiracy theory, and they aren’t going to be happy until they reduce the US back to the 1700s.

    • I suspect that most of the protesters are confused because they think the words science and scientist mean the same thing.

      • I have a few young so-called scientists in my office, and I was embarrassed (for them, not me) to hear them talking about plans to travel to one of these marches.
        Specifically, they have biology degrees.
        I have to suffer through hearing their ignorant opinions on a regular basis, and I can tell you what they think about what real science is…they think that since a University gave them a degree that anything that is their opinion is a fact, whether it be a political issue or a scientific question or whatever.
        None of them are what I would consider to be unusually smart or well educated in general.
        I am 100% certain I could outscore any of them on any test of factual information on any subject.
        Mostly they are just very full of themselves, while at the same time they are in many ways delicate snowflakes.
        They would not last two questions in a debate against someone with contrary opinions…they are no idea at all how to make a point…they only know how to opine.

      • The problem with youngsters in general, is that they haven’t been around long enough to know what it is they don’t know yet.
        It used to be the job of schools to first make kids aware of how ignorant they are so that they could be ready to receive knowledge.
        Modern education just tells kids that they are special.

  3. Agree that it probably hurt rather than helped. Revealing oneself as a loonie may not matter to other loonies, but it does to normal adults. Occupy Wall Street had the same negative effect.

    • OWS was successful in introducing” The 1%” to the American political lexicon. A true cornerstone of Marxist thought.

    • When people dress up like freaks, hoist obscene signs and scream inane meaningless slogans it’s a “made-for-TV” Fake Media Event. Think Woodstock for virtue-signalers. Real people don’t waste their time watching this crap–they have work to do. Maybe we need a “Snowflake Channel.”

  4. Consider the sign hoisted by the lady in the center.
    Many people would not approve.
    Thus, her message will fail.
    Two things will destroy a person’s 1st impression:
    – mistreating puppies;
    – nasty language.

      • At least, not in the view of people of that generation.
        That is their public position.
        In private, or in their own heads, who knows?
        It is difficult for me to believe that they actually and truly believe all of the inane BS they feel obligated to go along with.
        Much of it, like CAGW…yes, many of them seem to believe it.
        But that gender is not a biological reality?
        I doubt it.

      • Only toddlers try to get attention by saying nasty grown-up words in inappropriate places.

    • Consider the sign hoisted by the lady in the center

      C’mon boys, are we all just being coy (gentlemen) or using her as an easy target to throw ad-homs?
      Either way, those are 2 very good reasons she has brought that sign, even if she doesn’t consciously realise herself.

      She ‘has an itch’ that only a boy can scratch and she has singularly failed in her quest to find a real boy. She’s found a load of emos, touchy feely emotional types, fat diabetic losers addicted to sugar, alcohol & coffee and smart-Alecs, like here, who imagine they’re clever/funny by throwing insults. Probably an affliction picked up from warmists.

      And how many think (and say out loud) that western birth rates are falling because westerners are so clever, rich and superior?
      Where does that leave people/places where they do still have a replacement birth rate?
      Ever wonder why USA need such a large military? Not because diplomacy is a strong US suit??????
      And what do diplomats need if not clear heads, empathy, quick wits and a sense of humour – just what that girl is now forced to openly advertise for

      We’re increasing asleep & out of touch with our own kind – what chance does The Planet have?
      (sorry lads, someone had to say it)

      • “Not because diplomacy is a strong US suit??????”

        This made me think of the phrase, “speak from a position of strength”. But because “speak to” got such short shrift earlier in the thread, I was reluctant to use it to make a point. Full disclosure: I often find myself amusing when those about me are arguing about English language usage instead of the substance of an article. Full marks, Peta, for sticking to the subject.

    • The public don’t yet associate scientists with the language of gangsta-rap. Maybe if the sign had said “It is considered sufficient that ultra-oedipal doubters of accepted scientific theories should be disallowed from participation in ultra-oedipal national policy-making.” – or something like that, someone might have believed she was a scientist.

  5. One could probably get some entertainment using footage of these various marchers, facial recognition technology and an amusing sound track.
    Same loonies,same signs, different “reason” same results…public spaces left trashed and needing cleanup at the municipalities(Thats taxpayers) expense.
    Too much exposure is so toxic to “The Cause”TM.
    Probably why the decaying media is ignoring the entertainment potential available.

    • well said. looking at these people, I see how communism (now labelled environmentalism and it’s close cousin socialism) so easily seduced them with it’s appeal to their emotions and the promise of a glorious collective future where the government will always know best and take care of them (sarc). we know how many millions paid the price with their lives, but the “useful idiots” are still lined up for the plucking.

  6. How come I never get polled ??
    Is it cus I’ve got caller ID ??, I’d be happy to answer the phone if I knew it was a pollster, I’m pretty free with my opinions.

    • I live in N.H. And every 4 yrs I get called for my opinion innumerable times. It’s not what it is cracked up to be.

    • Not me…I hang up immediately without saying a word as soon as I discern that the caller is not someone I know or someone with prearranged business with me.
      I would not trust anything said by a random phone caller…not who they are, what they want, nothing. It may well be a real pollster, but I would never know because I am hanging up.

      • Much more fun to play along, start getting a bit testy about the time, the poller will say we’ve only got three more questions, wait until the penultimate one, then hang up. Since your input was incomplete, they can’t use it, but you have certainly used a lot of their time. Do this especially if they call at dinnertime. (Note that I am a curmudgeon, and retired.)

    • That is why the government has deployed the public school system with a big assist from higher education to manufacture more over-aged children sans critical thinking and reasoning skills.

      When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am a college graduate I will move back into my parents basement, make a bunch of childish signs, play dress up and attend mob temper tantrums that masquerade as marches.

      Most of the people in the above picture holding up signs got their BS degrees in Marches for Things. And they have downloaded their degrees to their iPads to prove it.

      • powers2be,
        A few decades back, I earned BS and MS – Metallurgical engineering degrees from University of Wisconsin – Madison. I saw a lot of ‘protest marches’ and childish tantrums from the ‘soft sciences’ end of the campus. I and some friends took pleasure in disrupting ‘teach ins’ on Bascom Hill and such. On one occasion, the deluded anti-nuclear darlings blockaded the entrances to the Mechanical Engineering building, because it has an operating nuclear reactor within. Many of us had classes in the building so we formed up a ‘flying wedge’ and forced our way to the main doors, with a mob of other engineering students following the path opened by the wedge. The protesting deluded darlings were quite upset at being forced aside but I explained to several of them that I was going to attend the class I had paid for! Later that day, I returned to the Mechanical Engineering building and cleaned up a substantial amount of the trash that the oh-so-concerned-about-the-environment protestors had left behind.

  7. This poll would have been more useful if it also asked the level of science education of the recipients, and then compared their responses to the effectiveness of these marches.

    It would have highlighted two aspects: the abysmal level of science education the US in general, and whether these marches might have any impact beyond their political motivation.

    • People aren’t anti science. This type of clustered foolishness with goofy Social ‘Just Us’ messages is not a vehicle for science. You don’t have to have had a science education to appreciate your heart transplant, or rovers on Mars. Many commenters are giving too much credibility to post modern Millennial rebels with a stupid cause. Even the usual trolls are too embarrassed to show up on this thread (er… so far) .

      • Exactly right. Most people are very much pro-science. They see all the benefits. But they also understand that “science” often seldom gives simple pat answers to real world issues and sometimes simply gets it wrong.These protesters are confusing policy preferences with being anti-science. Some of them are probably making an honest error. Others probably are not.

      • I’m surprised the trolls have not arrived. On other blogs, I am constantly admonished (too polite a word, I know) that the computer I am typing on was made by SCIENCE and I am foolish to be anti-global warming “science”. Therefore, global warming is RIGHT and I am wrong. Even science can be made part of a trolling exercise if one has no understanding of logic and reasoning.

      • Jay T

        My take on this is that ‘science’ does not exist on its own. It is a set of tools and a library of accumulation opinions, many of which are yet to be proven incorrect.

        The idea that ‘science has an opinion’ is a form of anthropomorphism:

        +++++++++
        Define Anthropomorphic at Dictionary.com
        …ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.
        +++++++++

        The deity of scientism is science itself, which upon close examination is nothing more than a collection of the works of ‘men’. (Please remember ‘men’ is a generic term for humans and does not mean ‘males’.)

        Because atheists and materialists reject the notion of including Revealed Knowledge in the body of scientific works, anyone seeking knowledge that lies beyond what happens to have been discovered to date by humans must look elsewhere in the library.

        I lived in Africa where there are people who are very good at locating lost objects (or stolen things). The ‘standard’ explanation is that someone who does this ‘was lucky’ of ‘made a lucky guess’. If someone has had several hundred ‘lucky guesses’ in a row, they are not given credit by Western scientists for their skill, they are reviled or ignored because acceptance would require a major change in the world view of the (Western) observers judging them. (Western observers apparently are the self-appointed arbiters of what does and does not constitute scientific knowledge.)

        There are two levels of acceptance of such a skill: first, that people can do it (find or describe where to find lost or stolen objects without so much as visiting the scene of the crime or disappearance). The next level is once we accept that people have this skill, that we think we know ‘how it is done’. Because we do not know how it is done, scientists reject the evidence, while the religious usually attribute the skill to the inspiration of a good God or a bad god. Seeing this play out, I concluded that there are very few good scientists and no greater a number of reliable prelates.

        There are more than two bodies of knowledge: They are:
        1. That which is discovered and commonly accepted by the community in which that discovery occurs;
        2. That which originates from religious Revelations, whether demonstrable or not, the distinction being its origin, not its demonstrability;
        3. That which is not from a religious Revelation and which is also not known to the community assessing whether the knowledge passes the test of ‘truth’.

        That test is usually a matter of its being ‘demonstrated here’. ‘Not demonstrated here’ means ‘it is not knowledge’, with the caveat that if it originated in a Holy Book, that Book will be claimed to be a syncretic assemblage of knowledge that was once discovered, was lost but recorded at some point, or inserted into the Book later and the evidence of the edit covered up. Science gods are is very intolerant of Revealed Knowledge so evidence of it has to be ‘explained’.

        it is quite common for people to say. “That which does not appear in my Holy Book is not true, or is probably not true, if it undermines what I understand from my Book.

        It is just as common for people to say. “That which does not appear in my science book is not true, or is probably not true, if it undermines what I understand from my book.

        The ‘pro-science’ marchers wish the beliefs they assume are true, to be proven to be so, red-flagging every possible confirmation and dismissing contrary evidence. This behaviour is not religious or quasi-religious in nature, it is willful ignorance and against the precepts of scientific evidence.

        Climate catastrophism is nothing more than willful ignorance dipped in snake-oil click bait. Let’s give it up go back to cleaning up the environment and inventing better energy sources.

      • Jay T

        My take on this is that ‘science’ does not exist on its own. It is a set of tools and a library of accumulation opinions, many of which are yet to be proven incorrect.

        The idea that ‘science has an opinion’ is a form of anthropomorphism:

        +++++++++
        Define Anthropomorphic at Dictionary.com
        …ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.
        +++++++++

        The deity of scientism is science itself, which upon close examination is nothing more than a collection of the works of ‘men’. (Please remember ‘men’ is a generic term for humans and does not mean ‘males’.)

        Because atheists and materialists reject the notion of including Revealed Knowledge in the body of scientific works, anyone seeking knowledge that lies beyond what happens to have been discovered to date by humans must look elsewhere in the library.

        I lived in Africa where there are people who are very good at locating lost objects (or stolen things). The ‘standard’ explanation is that someone who does this ‘was lucky’ of ‘made a lucky guess’. If someone has had several hundred ‘lucky guesses’ in a row, they are not given credit by Western scientists for their skill, they are reviled or ignored because acceptance would require a major change in the world view of the (Western) observers judging them. (Western observers apparently are the self-appointed arbiters of what does and does not constitute scientific knowledge.)

        There are two levels of acceptance of such a skill: first, that people can do it (find or describe where to find lost or stolen objects without so much as visiting the scene of the crime or disappearance). The next level is once we accept that people have this skill, that we think we know ‘how it is done’. Because we do not know how it is done, scientists reject the evidence, while the religious usually attribute the skill to the inspiration of a good God or a bad god. Seeing this play out, I concluded that there are very few good scientists and no greater a number of reliable prelates.

        There are more than two bodies of knowledge: They are:
        1. That which is discovered and commonly accepted by the community in which that discovery occurs;
        2. That which originates from religious Revelations, whether demonstrable or not, the distinction being its origin, not its demonstrability;
        3. That which is not from a religious Revelation and which is also not known to the community assessing whether the knowledge passes the test of ‘truth’.

        That test is usually a matter of its being ‘demonstrated here’. ‘Not demonstrated here’ means ‘it is not knowledge’, with the caveat that if it originated in a Holy Book, that Book will be claimed to be a syncretic assemblage of knowledge that was once discovered, was lost but recorded at some point, or inserted into the Book later and the evidence of the edit covered up. Science gods are is very intolerant of Revealed Knowledge so evidence of it has to be ‘explained’.

        it is quite common for people to say. “That which does not appear in my Holy Book is not true, or is probably not true, if it undermines what I understand from my Book.

        It is just as common for people to say. “That which does not appear in my science book is not true, or is probably not true, if it undermines what I understand from my book.

        The ‘pro-science’ marchers wish the beliefs they assume are true, to be proven to be so, red-flagging every possible confirmation and dismissing contrary evidence. This behaviour is not religious or quasi-religious in nature, it is willful ignorance and against the precepts of scientific evidence.

        Climate catastrophism is nothing more than willful ignorance dipped in snake-oil click bait. Let’s give it up go back to cleaning up the environment and inventing better energy sources.

  8. I just assume it is an excuse for partying, blowing off steam, and being foul-mouthed in front of a large audience. The latter works for many late night talk show hosts – why not for the average low-brow on the street?

  9. People doubt political advocacy. The Left tried to use science to support their positions. They succeeded only in dragging down science. Now they double down by advocating for science. This will only make things worse.

    • No loss, seems to me that science has jumped the shark anyways. New breakthroughs are announced and never heard about again. I think it is mostly to pump stock prices temporarily. To this day we are just integrating and improving technology that has existed for a century or more in some cases.

      • Mick

        You may have inadvertently overachieved on your “…improving technology that has existed for a century…” rant.

        Either that or I missed the 1917 moon landings, personal computers, cell phones, TV, and rock & roll.

      • “it is mostly to pump stock prices temporarily: I thought that was the purpose of the “Company C has discovered a cure for cancer. If you act now, you can buy stock before the general announcement and get rich” emails I’m always getting. You mean those aren’t real? :)

  10. Weekend outrage warriors.
    Chartered buses, Subaru’s, and the occasional Tesla will return them to their comfortable lives.
    That comfort as assured as settled science.
    It is the uncomfortable that remain unswayed.

    • I agree, except for the Subaru part. I bought my Outback because of it’s sound engineering,four cylinder opposed engine, low center of gravity, all wheel drive, great safety stats, high resale value, and the fact that my daughter and grandson help build them here in Indiana.

  11. ‘Protests’ and ‘marches’ only exist to give their friends in the mass media something to talk about to push The Narrative.

    And no-one cares what the mass media are talking about any more.

  12. They didn’t ask what ‘science’ was being supported. I think if science came off so poorly, climate polisci must have been devastated. There is no one that lives a modern life that doesn’t support real science. Mixing science with who can use what bathroom, or anticapitalist, anti nuclear, anti free speech, gender justice science simply postmodernism science right out of the picture. Still, they do love to give out Nobel Prizes for this kind of stuff nowadays. I’m sure they have an inordinate number of bathrooms to choose from at the Nobel committee building.

  13. i can state, unequivocally, that neither of the marches changed my opinion at all.

    after 20+ years in uniform, i know BS when i see/hear it, and that’s all either event brought to the table.

  14. All they did was hurt the audience for Rick and Morty by associating the show with cringe inducing people.

  15. Someone needs to inform the red head in the middle of that picture holding up the sign proclaiming she has had enough, that she is suffering from Climate Hoax Denial Disorder
    She would be best served to put down the sign and go enjoy life on a warmer planet before the next ice age.

    • She is suffering too much of herself. As Larry Aarn said recently “Every serious achievement in education involves forgetting oneself.”

      • “Every serious achievement in education involves forgetting oneself.”

        Boy that’s true in math and physics . You have to warp your mind til it maps reality .

        Very humbling .

      • ..Bob Armstrong….My mind gets warped every time I try to understand the logic of Quantum Physics…..?

    • I think you have misdiagnosed a case of Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder, although it’s possible she has both. People like this often have more than one neurosis.

  16. Look at the photos, read the signs, and imagine the societal benefit the following:

    All of the participants in these marches, rather than returning home after these festivities, marched straight up into Canada, renounced their U.S citizenship, and stayed there permanently.

    We would soon be adding a new national holiday to mark that happy day!

    • Hey, spare a thought for Canada. Please. We have plenty of home-grown loonies and really don’t want yours. We even have David Suzuki. Help!

      [The mods request y’all Canadians send all available home-stamped and hard-core loonies south for reprocessing … Home-grown loonies may stay north. .mod]

  17. I still have no idea as to what they were actually marching for and I don’t think they did either. It looked like a circus parade without the elephants. PETA ended that last year……

    • It doesn’t matter as long as it’s sanctioned by the hive-mind. In reality it’s simply performance art by self-indulgent narcissists desperately seeking relevance.

    • And not in AGW but CAGW. CAGW is a scientific hypothesis supported by many papers in the scientific literature, so they are not so much wrong per se, just that they should realise it is not a fact but a subject of controversy. Not settled though scientific.

      MSM continually equates AGW and CAGW so it is not easy to see there is much predicting and projecting going on with zero track record.

      That even Nature publishes unfounded scare stories based on peer reviewer’s advocacy, is beyond my comprehension.

  18. “Personally, I think it hurt more than it helped”

    Does that mean you are one of the 7%? Or that you don’t agree with the PEW study? Because the PEW study has 44% against 7%, that seems like quite a difference.

    “…a lot of them came off looking like total buffoons.”

    I have never seen a rally that did not have some goofy signs.

  19. I like the evolution of Republicans poster. Evolving into a apex predator that was the top of the food chain for 60 million years.

  20. I see that they are all wrapped up very snugly, in fossil fuel derived clothing, against the warming globe.

    • Well, PETA would raise a snit at fur coats, hardcore vegans wouldn’t wear wool, and cannabis these days is for smoking, not hemp-making…

      A choice between hypocrisy and hypothermia, it seems.

  21. I don’t see how people dressing up like science clowns and carrying signs saying such things as, “God hates climate deniers” does anything but provide entertainment.

  22. Marches are devalued by overuse. They are damaged by the number of people who use them as a distraction while they destroy property. They are confused by the myriad of causes, most of which would be poorly supported if they stood alone. Marches were originally the last desperate way to give a voice to people without one. Now marches are the temperamental squeal of over pampered elites who have little to worry about but their pet crusades. They’re usually attended by people who live nearby, in some of the most expensive property in the World or by celebrities who jet in from their tax haven to berate the plebs before swanning off for something obscenely indulgent. They are often blatently political and by their nature offend those with the opposite political bent. I’d say that they were virtue signalling but for most marchers virtue is too old fashioned and really it’s just a ‘swivel on it’ to the bulk of society for not doing as they were told.

    • People march everyday in Venezuela. The Maduro dictatorship is using huge amounts of gas grenades, but I believe the marches are weakening the regime. But it’s true that eventually the conflict will move to burning oil wells and facilities. The marches are sort of a training ground for much tougher undertakings. But it’s a different situation.

      • Maybe the world would nootice the real marches if there weren’t more amusing ones with women wearing pink hats with cat’s ears?

  23. The “public support for science” issue is a faux issue, designed solely to smear climate skeptics/realists as anti-science.

  24. I find these marches odd. A march should be done to raise awareness of a topic. So the march for science makes no sense. Is there a need for a march for business, or a march for music?

    Who is not aware of the importance of science? Even the science illiterate know it is important.

  25. Frankly, after walking 25+ miles in the George Harrison inspired “March for Bangladesh,” I concluded that they were wrong in “Animal House” … there are some thing that don’t deserve a “useless effort on the part of somebody.”
    Especially, when they march when the people you are trying to impress have gone home for the weekend.

  26. This poll purports to measure what people think the effect of the marches was. Why not measure what the effect of the marches was?

  27. Yeah yeah yeah. The marches firmed up a few things and left other things much much gooier.

    Firmed up:
    Warmists, alarmists, socialists, communists, combat yoga peace poppers:
    A) Can not count!
    B) Can not read!
    C) Are unable to design their own signs.
    D) Cannot keep their crayons within the lines, ever!
    E) Are obviously not on the same page(s).
    F) Are as thoroughly greedy as all revolutionaries. It is for others to starve and suffer.
    G) We have our doubts that any two marchers agreed on anything.

    It is also very obvious that virtually all of the marchers do not believe any of their own swill about giving up fossil fuels.
    Most of them look and act like spoiled urbanites who’ve never suffered for anything.

    No mikey manniacal in a hair shirt.
    No Gavinator in self made shoes.
    No 350orgy master in handwoven garments.
    No hardworking peasants or serfs in homespun selling foodstuffs.

    Those poor fools really need very long religious retreats and soulless searching; often call prison by civically minded people.

  28. The marchers may have succeeded in impressing and even intimidating politicians with their numbers in the locations they demonstrate. That may be their aim. They may also have succeeded in making other warmists bolder in asserting their beliefs, again because of their numbers.

  29. The wide gap between whatever it is these marchers think they are ‘marching for’, and the things they do that contradict their alleged interests is rather obvious to a bystander like me, and others who’ve noted some of these contradictions.
    For example, they detest, despise and don’t want any use of ‘fossil’ fuels. The contradiction is their obvious use in every aspect of their lives of synthetics derived from fossil fuels, e.g., petroleum, which is the source of most synthetic clothing including Goretex.
    They deny having any interest in any organized religion. The contradiction is that they are turning CAGW into that very thing, with an entire belief system that includes zealotry, proselytizing, money-seeking, and all the other stuff I can’t keep track of any more, including something that closely resembles the ecstasy felt when a religious convert has an epiphany. I really expect to see a list of something akin to saints and a hierarchy that has a godhead at its peak, never mind a “Guidebook to CAGW Ideology” that will quickly become their ‘BIble’.
    Do you see where I’m going with this? It has all the earmarks of a religious sect, and the fact that several people (Shekla, Nye) have even suggested and/or demanded that those with opposing view be prosecuted (or persecuted, take your pick), clearly shows the need for control of something that is NOT controllable by humans: this planet. They have no control over what it does, but try to convince them of that.
    If the marchers did their cause more harm that good by making themselves both ridiculous and repellent, and by having nothing new to say – just repeating the same slogans and drivel – that’s fine with me. I prefer to stand off to the side and watch them march right off the cliff.
    I know this is petty and spiteful, but I want to see them locked out in the cold, left to exist with no heat, no electricity, and no syntho clothing to keep them warm. And no grocery stores or coffee shops to pander to their idiocy. They need a harsh dose of that kind of reality.
    Henry Beston said, in his popular book ‘The Outermost House’, ‘The world today is sick to its thin blood for the lack of elemental things: for fire before the hands, for water, for air, for the dear Earth itself underfoot.’
    It may be cynical of me to say so, but these latter-day hippie marchers couldn’t last five minutes in the forest preserves around here. The raccoons, coyotes and possums would scare the crap out of them, frogs sending out mating calls would drive them nuts, and the bugs you run into – well, that’s what bug spray is for.

  30. This is the wrong, or at least not the most salient question. Pew should be asking: Did the science and climate marches affect YOUR attitude towards science and public support (money) for science? I’m betting that if there is any measurable effect it is to further increase the divide. Those who already support the protestors positions support it more strongly, those who disagree also do so more strongly.

  31. Hey, let’s do one of those fundraising walks for science.

    Nothing says commitment to a cause like annoying everybody you know to give you money to go out a walk, as if this frivolous, recreational, physical effort somehow is REAL work for the cause. I have come to view all such walks as stupid, even though, in the past, I have participated in a couple. They are just big parties for people comfortable enough in life to stage them as forms of recreation. Just raise the money and give it to the cause — don’t do this faux work and somehow think people feel more strongly that you are working harder for the cause, because you are walking for fun.

    And tell Girl Scouts to stop setting up their cookie-begging stations in front of stores to ambush you with pleas to buy their wares. And tell Walmart cashiers to stop begging for money for worthy causes at checkout. And tell waiters to stop with pitches to donate to universities before telling you what the night’s specials are. Get my drift? This whole public-visibility-for-a -cause thing has grown to sickening proportions.

  32. Anthony,
    With respect to your comment about buffoons in the march, I believe one of the sign holders is likewise commenting on the buffoonery of the crowd, without them knowing it. The ‘Get Schwifty’ sign ridicules the marchers. Very few in the crowd would understand the implications of the sign.

    • I wondered about that one too. ‘Get Schwifty’ Sounds very subversive, but in a way that the cat is amongst the pigeons. I would say it is definitely an assault on the intelligence of the protestors. Google says “a giant head coming to Earth asking for an original song who then brings the Earth to an “American Idol” like parody to judge their planet”. Language warning… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1188GO4p1E

  33. Trouble with most of these polls, is that they survey the coastal urban centers, because it s easier. If they went out into the boondocks of Nebraska and Montanna, they may get a different result.

    R

  34. I feel a smidgen of responsibility for these modern day protests, since as a youngster in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, not only was I protesting the Vietnam war (which was more of a noble cause) but I was on the front lines of the marches to stop the nuclear testing at Amchitka Island in Alaska. Other than the Civil Rights marches earlier in the 1960’s, these two causes were the formation of the modern day protest movement that soon incorporated all environmental issues, starting with a whaling ban which everyone would support today. It was was also primarily spontaneous by a very young baby boom population demographic that was ripe to take on an establishment that was led by some very bad ideas with poor political governance. (i.e. Nixon)

    Which as some may recall fairly soon to led to the formation of Greenpeace on the left coast of Canada specifically regarding the Amchikta nuclear testing. But Greenpeace has now become the antithesis of what it started out to be with the new international religion of CAGW and environmental zealotry of every stripe. Perhaps the protests about the Amchitka nuclear tests were rational, since it was directly on an earthquake fault with potential volcanic fallout. I might even protest that one again today, since it probably isn’t a really bright idea for that location, but they don’t do that anymore anymore because it was a bad idea.

    The difference today is that protesting now is a well oiled organized professional protest by people with deep pockets employing wholesale unions and student body academics led by activist professors to enforce their CAGW religion down everybody’s throats. As well as paid professional protesters. It isn’t a spontaneous eruption but a calculated one, including dozens of causes and themes in the same march and that is the difference between then and now. We had legitimate singular causes to make a fuss about in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and it did make a difference. Unfortunately, some people think now that any cause they care about is eligible to be taken seriously in a march/protest. If they keep this up, then they are just crying wolf and no one will take them serious, so IMO, they are now doing harm to their own ‘movement’. I don’t take them serious, and if anything, I just see the hypocrisy of their actions as do I believe the majority of most other people as well.

  35. Had i attended that march I would have carried a placard that said:

    …….Standing on the shoulders of Marx
    Socialism — the science that informs all others
    …….To see the furthest climb the giant!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  36. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Climate change of this nature has been going on for eons. It is all a matter os science. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science. Opinion poles do not change the fact thatthe AGW conjecture is just too full of holes to defend. It is all a matter of sceince.

  37. This is nothing new. All sorts of political movements have tried pulling to themselves democracy, truth, justice, science and more. They usually have major grudges against faceless enemies. The rest is semantics. Now, let’s see how long Eric will hold my messages in moderation for maintaining these views without exceptions.

  38. Green Economics: Hire People To Push Busses
    Employing Americans as bus pushers would mean jobs. These jobs would be “labor intensive,” so we could “create” plenty of them. Bus pushing, need it be said, would also benefit the environment. Getting rid of buses would go a long way in helping avert a global catastrophe. And since these jobs are largely untethered from any market forces, “we” can pay workers great salaries by relying on government subsidies. So, win, win, and win.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/green-economics-hire-people-to-push-busses/

  39. The division of the “Peoples’s Climate March” into various groups with nonsensical names was strange, but I guess they were using hivemind dynamics. Being part of a huge group is good, but with so many possible sub-groups, they were able to make people feel even more “special”. Feeling special, and being part of a huge group with the Noble Cause of “saving the planet” is what it’s all about.

  40. The March for Science Apr 22 2017. Is it real Science or “Politically Correct Science?”

    We’ re marching for Science, Yippee!
    Obama is gone. We are free
    to explore what is true.
    No more models will do.
    The Climate has changed, totally!

    The Climate doomsayers are out in force are out in force again. On a sign the headline “The “Debate” is over” stands out.

    So, let’s see what facts are in.

    CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, second only to water vapor in affecting the climate on earth. If CO2 were to double from pre-industrial times, which it will have done in 50 years or so, global temperatures on earth will increase about 0.9 degree Celsius from pre-industrial times, if that was the only factor affecting the greenhouse effect. This corresponds to a radiative forcing of 4.9 W/m2. But water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and, this is important, they are not orthogonal as defined by chemometrics, that means, the responses from water vapor and CO2 are not independent, and they are only partly additive. The CO2 concentration is on the order of 400 ppm, the average global H2O concentration at surface level is around 12,500 ppm. Since both H2O and CO2 absorb in the same area, if water vapor concentration is more than 30 times higher, the CO2 concentration doesn’t matter, it is all absorbed by H2O, and this is the reason there is no hotspot in the equatorial troposphere. All climate models predict there must be one, so there must be something seriously wrong with all climate models.

    What does IPCC do with this evidence?

    IPCC ignores it, and claim the models are still correct.

    This is not science, but politically correct science denial.

    We are now in a nineteen year Climate “pause”, where increasing cloud cover with its strong negative feedback cancels out the potential temperature rise of rising CO2.

    We are in the bog-building phase of the inter-glacial period, and the long term temperature trend is down, rising CO2 will delay the onset of the next ice age by maybe 2000 years.

    The real debate has just started, and this time, let us talk real science, verified by observations, not fear-mongering political statements. https://lenbilen.com/2017/04/21/the-march-for-science-apr-22-2017-is-it-real-science-or-politically-correct-science/

  41. Democrats and young people are apt to believe the marches will help because:
    1. Most of the marchers were one or the other or both
    2. Democrats and young people believe WORDS are all that is needed to “fix” something. If there is a march, science will magically be supported. Their belief in magic is contrary to science, but irrelevant as long as no one says anything about it. Actual results are irrelevant, much as they are in “science” now. Only what is “said” is important.

    Marchers certainly show their intellect and education with the proifanity in the signs. All that says to me is “Moron carrying this sign barely passed 2nd grade English classes and is incapable of advanced thinking. IGNORE ME.” I do hope that was the intent when he/she made the sign.

  42. Since the marchers were anti-science, it is difficult to answer a question if their march was successful in increasing support for science.

  43. “He made me look ridiculous. And a man in my position can’t afford to be made to look ridiculous!” The movie producer Woltz in “The Godfather,” explaining why the Corleones’ protege Johnny Fontaine will never get the role in Woltz’s upcoming picture.

    Apparently, scientists don’t mind if crazy kids parading in the streets with anti-intellectual agitprop make them look ridiculous. Well, they can’t afford it, even if they don’t know it yet.

  44. I have another idea for a placard — or better a chant to be shouted very loudly.

    People of color are not color blind !!!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  45. You can’t handle the truth? An excellent Globe and Mail environmental commentary gets universally ignored

    It is so sad that such a great story, from scientists who are as much scientists as the IPCC’s legions, was so widely ignored. The fact that it was speaks volumes about the current quality of the discussion – there is none. Environmental discussions have become religious discussions. The ten percent that are driving the climate change debate are trying to get the other 90 to adopt their god, but the commandments are way harder than the old Christian ones. Sure, I can promise not to kill anyone, but give up flying? Outta my way, weirdo.
    Sincere environmentalists will want to take note of articles like these, and because they are thoughtful they will start to move down the proper axis, from destruction to construction, rather than the false battleground between good and bad that is currently being promoted.
    http://boereport.com/2017/05/15/you-cant-handle-the-truth-an-excellent-globe-and-mail-environmental-commentary-gets-universally-ignored/

    http://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-globe-and-mail-ottawaquebec-edition/20170508/281861528416333

    China Eyes U.S. Energy Next After $20 Billion `Belt, Road’ Deals
    http://boereport.com/2017/05/14/china-eyes-u-s-energy-next-after-20-billion-belt-road-deals/

  46. That 40% could imagine the marches help “science” is the saddest statement imaginable both about the obvious political motivations of the marchers and the post normal definition of “science” itself.

  47. Well, carrying signs advertising the fact that they share every bit of Progressive Correctness in place of an opinion, unrelated to science or climate change, couldn’t have possibly helped their case for scientific objectivity.

  48. These events were not marches for Science but for Anti-Science! There is nothing in AGW/CAGW/climate change that bears even the slightest resemblance to science.

    PMK

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s