The March For Science was more political than scientific. It was held Saturday, April 22, 2017, in various cities around the world.
Thousands at the March for Science sang to a singular political, rather than scientific, tune. One observer describes the scene:
A significant proportion of the signs were personally aimed at President Trump, which seems a touch narrow-minded and plays into his Twittering fingers. …So while many might have been amused at a sign that read ‘Trump doesn’t believe in climate change because he can’t imagine anything hotter than his daughter,’ it’s not quite the heart-winner that scientists need in order to make their case.
This is an accurate assessment. Science gains nothing in the way of rational argument and scientific validity with political and personal insults. On the other hand, that assumes rationality is what these scientists desire. The March for Science seems to eschew reasonable scientific debate.
The nature of the signage at the march indicates the point of view represented there. What should matter at a March for Science, is a rational, scientific message coming across in a convincing manner, not a political agenda.
Instead, the message of the March for Science consists of pot-shots and name calling. In a word, it is infantile. It is certainly unworthy of the exalted status conferred upon science in our society. The March for Science is more political posturing than scientific presentation.
The March for Science Is Unscientific
The March for Science bills itself as:
A diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.
Yet, the participants and sponsors of the event are anything but nonpartisan. They uniformly stand against President Trump and claim his policies will result in disastrous consequences for the planet. Their position is manifestly unscientific.
Those at the March for Science are most concerned about anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. The alarming rhetoric surrounding this issue is both old and unsupported by the evidence. Remember the world-renowned scientist Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and its doomsday projections? According to him, the coastlines of the U.S. were all supposed to be submerged two years ago!
The worst part of this slide into political and personal statements is the phony justification based on the “settled science” of man-made climate change. A true adherent to science knows that science is never settled. The rigors of the scientific method always leave even the most confirmed results uncertain. Those claiming the mantle of a scientist at the March for Science should know that.
Politicizing Science Is Unscientific
The rallying cry for today’s eco-warriors is the aforementioned issue of man-made climate change. The sloganeering surrounding the March for Science is a testament to how much politics has become forcefully involved in dictating the scientific debate.
However, many in the scientific community disagree with the view held by those in sympathy with the March for Science concerning man-made climate change. Those who are courageous have gathered as signatories of “The Global Warming Petition Project.”
The website for this petition project contains reams of actual climate data, which are charted and presented in plain language even a politician can understand. The conclusions based on real data show that:
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate … Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gasses like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Currently, the petition boasts 31,487 American scientists and 9,029 of them hold Ph.D. degrees including 3,805 directly involved in environmental science. Trusting people of this expertise is wiser and more scientific than trusting politicians or those with political agendas at the March for Science.
Shutting Down Scientific Debate
Former President Obama routinely excoriated so-called “climate deniers” as being akin to those who believed the earth was flat. In his 2014 State of the Union address, Obama made this declaration, “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”
This is odd because the evidence in favor of man-made climate change is based on computer modeling rather than analyzing real data. The March for Science should be about upholding the results of real data.
Obama’s statement is an indicator of a growing trend to shut down and censor scientific debate. In one example, a well-known media outlet, the Huffington Post decided, on its own, to not allow any debate, even scientific debate, about climate change. That is censorship.
A little less than two years ago, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., took a step beyond censorship. He wrote an op-ed that urged the Department of Justice to use racketeering laws against coal and oil industries.
Even Bill Nye has chipped in suggesting that “climate deniers” be prosecuted. He must believe dissenters who differ with the March for Science agenda should be jailed. It sounds a bit like how Russia might react.
Does this mean that soon disagreement and dissent will face the threat of imprisonment and fines in America? If those behind the March for Science have their way, free, honest, and reasonable scientific debate will no longer be allowed, and liberty in America will be jettisoned. Perhaps, it will ever return.
Opinion News by D.T. Osborn
Edited by Cathy Milne
CNET: I went to the March for Science and the signs are troubling
FOX NEWS Opinion: A physicist’s take on the March for Science
Global Warming Petition Project: Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research
MARCH FOR SCIENCE: About us
NEWSWEEK: SHOULD CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS BE PROSECUTED?
RedState: Bill Nye Says That We Should Throw “Climate Deniers” In Jail.
Featured and Top Image by By David Geitgey Courtesy of Wikimedia