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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
Sorry Ross.
I’m going with Greg on this, too, not your pontificating.
Butch. The second fact in your comment is attributed to Prince Phillip. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
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.
So is “speaking to an issue” different from “addressing an issue?”
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.
^^ THIS ^^
[Not THAT? .mod]
As long as it’s not
>>THOSE>>
<¿<
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.
In other words, wishful thinking?
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.
Maybe they are unsure which bathroom to use….totally understandable !! LOL
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.
Probably the same 44% that believes we can make industry more efficient by nationalizing it.
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.
remember that when you go out…
2 out of every 5 people you see
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.”
I thought that was CNN?
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.
You sure that’s a ‘she’?
It’s not a lady, that’s for certain.
..Nowadays, it is really hard to be sure..unless you…ummmmm…check first !
What equipment she might be sporting is no longer an indication of gender.
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.
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.
She thinks using asterisks means she wasn’t REALLY being rude, uncivil, and obscene.
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.
That’s one thing even climate change can never cause a shortage of—useful idiots.
Rules for Climate Radicals; A Good Tactic is One Your People Enjoy
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/rules-for-climate-radicals-a-good-tactic-is-one-your-people-enjoy/
Dressing Up in Costumes and Making a Fool of Yourself:
Doing Einstein with a dumb look on your face, yeah that’s the ticket!
And don’t forget that you need one of those creepy Mann beards. Voila, the biker scientist look.
So real science is having a diploma and a fake President is someone that won the election.
No evidence of diploma.
I wish I could unsee that photo…
UT Austin, people – Those are his everyday clothes.
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.)
guaranteeing you’re not voiceprinted eh!
Childish tantrums do not sway reasoning adults.
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.
…J Mac…Trash…By protesters…like this….
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/dakota-access-protest-camp-crews-haul-48-million-p/
Butch,
That’s a whole nother level of ‘taking out the trash’!
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) .
Ooooooh, now you’ve done it !!
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.
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?
It’s the modern morph of the Easter Parade .
I personally like hard boiled eggs, no matter what color you paint them !!…. :o)
true…..it’s the same people….and mostly and excuse for a street party
Think of it this way…..1 million people marched
….and 320 million didn’t
Less than 0.33% of the population. And they had to lump together just about every trendy social just-us cause to get even that many.
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? 🙂
Well said.
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.
‘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.
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.
postmodernizes
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.
Thank you for your service…
All they did was hurt the audience for Rick and Morty by associating the show with cringe inducing people.
survey is biased 56 : 44 towards democrats.
Polls are just as much fake news and the MSM. Don’t count on them to give you the real truth.
CNN …..Hillary has a 95% chance of winning !!! D’OH !!!
all surveys/polls are….conservative do not poll…they hang up
…liberals you can’t shut up
As were the pre-election polls. Pew is on a roll!
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.
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]
…Mod ….You only want the Canadian French blonde’s !!
There’s nothing in climate loonyism that a decade or two in Fairbanks would not fix. Canada can be left ‘as is’.
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.
Why do they say Science when what they mean is belief in human caused global warming?
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.
“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.
Don’t think I have ever seen a “Goofy Sign” at a Trump rally …..Do you have some actual examples ?
Hey, Not really sceptical.
Did you get your name from the SkS site?
Let me help you – the goofiest rally evah – caution: cannot guarantee unseeing the image below
?resize=1220:*&output-quality=75
Well, the goofiest rally evah didn’t seem to have any
?resize=1220:*&output-quality=75
That leaves what part of their anatomy in full view, ripe for the application of a lower human appendage?
Who cares? They’re wrong and don’t care to fact check anything.
I like the evolution of Republicans poster. Evolving into a apex predator that was the top of the food chain for 60 million years.
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.