Thousands join March for Science to fight 'alternative facts' (Update 3)

April 22, 2017
Supporters of science and research prepare to hand out leaflets as part of the March for Science protest in Sydney

Thousands of people joined a global March for Science on Saturday with Washington the epicenter of a movement to fight against what many see as an "assault on facts" by populist politicians.

US President Donald Trump himself passed dozens of protesters on his way to visit wounded soldiers at a military hospital.

"Stop denying the earth is dying," one sign visible from Trump's motorcade read.

Despite rain, protesters gathered around the Washington Monument for a festive day of music, speeches and teach-ins by scientists disturbed by the rise of so-called "alternative facts" around crucial issues like climate change following Trump's election.

"We have no Planet B," read one of the signs. Many demonstrators sported "Keep Our Science Great" caps as they arrived from around the country on Earth Day to highlight the importance of science to daily lives.

Protesters marched to the US Capitol to carry their pro-science message.

"Science is political but it is not partisan. Science serves all of us. Together we can—dare I say it—save the world! Let's march!" declared a television personality, Bill Nye the Science Guy, who currently heads the Planetary Society.

The movement was echoed in hundreds of events across the United States and around the world, from Sydney to Accra.

At a time when the Earth has marked three consecutive years of record-breaking heat, and ice is melting at an unprecedented rate at the poles, risking massive sea level rise in the decades ahead, some marchers said it was more important than ever for scientists to communicate and work toward solutions to curb fossil fuel emissions.

"Ditch the jargon," advised Tyler DeWitt, the star of a popular YouTube show on science. "Make it understandable. Make people care. Talk to them, not at them. We cannot complain about slashed funding if we can't tell taxpayers why science matters."

Spiking concerns

Organizers stressed the protest was non-partisan. But concerns about the challenges to the role of science in society have spiked under Trump's presidency.

He has proposed deep cuts in funding for scientific research, elevated opponents of climate pacts and environmental regulations to cabinet-level positions, and drawn support from conservative Christians who challenge the teaching of evolution in US schools.

"If this president has his way, science is in danger but I think there will be a lot of resistance from Congress," said Elisabeth Johnston, a retired biologist.

Trump issued a statement defending his administration's policies as aimed at protecting the environment "without harming America's working families."

"I am committed to keeping our air and water clean but always remember that economic growth enhances environmental protection. Jobs matter!" the Republican president said in a tweet, without acknowledging the massive crowds of marchers.

Satellite events

In London, hundreds of people marched from the Science Museum to the Houses of Parliament, holding signs with messages like "Science is Sexy" and "Less Invasions, More Equations."

The London rally was attended by actor Peter Capaldi, who plays TV's time-travelling hero of science, Dr Who.

In Ghana, organizers used the day for a teach-in at a beachside hotel in Accra about environmental issues of local concern such as the impact of plastic waste on the environment.

"It's killing our fish, we have flooding in our communities, we have a rise of environmental diseases," said Cordie Aziz, an American activist involved in plastics recycling.

Vocal protesters in Sydney wearing white lab coats called on politicians to support the scientific community. "We need thinkers not deniers," read one banner.

'Fake news' fears

Demonstrators turned out across Australia, in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and other cities, as well as Wellington and Auckland in New Zealand.

"In this day and age, there's so much fake news and alternate facts going around that it's important to remember that science is what has built the society we know today," Parissa Zand, who was at the Sydney march with her molecular biologist mother, told AFP.

Protestors in major university cities in Europe posted pictures on Twitter of marches in Bonn, Helsinki, Munich and Stockholm.

In Paris, a banner in French read: "We are the resistance against the orange menace in Washington! Defend science!"

Other rallies were scheduled in Brazil, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria and South Korea.

Scientists 'energized'

"Seeing the assault on fact-based thinking, scientists are energized," Paul Hanle, chief executive officer of Climate Central, an independent organization of scientists and journalists, wrote in an op-ed this week.

Scientists "are not famous for their camaraderie," said professor of carbon management at the University of Edinburgh, David Reay. "We are trained to question, criticize and, where needed, contest each other's work.

"That we are now marching together is testament to just how threatened our disparate community feels."

Explore further: People are taking to the streets to defend science – but it could come at a cost

Related Stories

Proposed cuts in US climate science reverberate worldwide

April 21, 2017

The gutting of US-funded climate science would cripple research agendas worldwide and hamper the global fight against climate change, say scientists outside the United States, some of whom will take to the streets Saturday ...

European science bodies 'concerned' about Trump

February 16, 2017

European science bodies on Thursday criticised Donald Trump's administration for what they said was a "policy reorientation" in favour of views "not based on facts and sound scientific processes and evidence."

Recommended for you

Egypt archaeologists discover mummy in Luxor

December 9, 2017

Egyptian archaeologists have discovered a mummy in one of two previously unexplored tombs across the Nile from the southern city of Luxor, the antiquities ministry said Saturday.

122 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrrander
1.8 / 5 (26) Apr 22, 2017
Global warming Marxists and intolerant progressives don't care about science they care about ideology. The ideology of the left, which includes 60 years of dead-wrong prognostications about the "doomed" planet also has terrible standards on which they base their science. Massaged data, cherry-picked to fit their global wealth-redistribution plot.
unrealone1
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2017
"alternative facts"
New Zealand's lost summer: how will we make it through the winter gloom?
https://www.thegu...er-gloom
idjyit
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2017
You go that right, It was one of the hotter summers in Auckland NZ, and lasted longer than usual as well ...
https://www.niwa....-2015-16
unrealone1
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2017
'Dream' winter conditions, except it's summer
Whatever happened to summer? Cardrona Alpine Resort woke up to its heaviest summer snowfall in living memory yesterday, 30cm covering the base.
http://www.nzhera...11787019
PhyOrgSux
1.5 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2017
Extreme fluctuations in weather can also happen because of soot particles in the atmosphere, it can still be "man made" but does not need to be due to worldwide climate change. In my opinion pollution exists on a global scale (certainly for example in the oceans) but fighting a "man made climate change" may be a misled decision.

Anyway, there's also the risk that science becomes the next religion, complete with it's own "temples" (universities), "high priests" (people with sufficient authority), fanatics, and enforcers.

In the end you do not need to worry about whether there is a "god" in the equation because if none other exists, this sort of thing can by default make the ideology a God to its fanatics. End results may not be as directly violent as they are with ISIS or Inquisition or Pol Pot but they can still lead to misled decisions.
ab3a
2 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2017
Movements like this are dangerous territory. What they're asking for is to form an orthodoxy of opinion and they want to tie this orthodoxy to political control of resources.

As I have stated before, the climate continues to change as it always has. The question everyone should be asking is whether and how we can cope with the change. Getting coordination among nations to meet certain carbon dioxide targets is a hopeless endeavor. We can't reach common agreement on much of anything else-- why would climate policy be any different?

That said, research in to better energy technologies is something we should continue doing regardless of climate policy.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (23) Apr 22, 2017
Among other things, "science" isn't helped by the fact 90 percent of articles in "scientific" journals have irreproducible conclusions, the claim that children should be exposed later to allergens to build resistance caused peanut allergies to explode 250 percent, it's not shown that neither form of cholesterol increases the danger of heart disease. Add that they won't even examine the fact that chemtrails cause climate change, not "fossil fuels", since climate change is being used to try to destroy the coal and oil industry and push "alternative energy", even though "alternative energy" is harming the environment worse than coal or oil. And "scientists" will never escape the blot of their not fighting Hitchens assertion that, if someone with a claim does not provide evidence to the satisfaction of someone fighting the claim, that "proves" the claim false, so the opposing claim doesn't need to be proved.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (23) Apr 22, 2017
You don't get to vote on reality.

Get over it.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (27) Apr 22, 2017
This is a science site. Deniers are politically motivated.

dogbert
2.4 / 5 (23) Apr 22, 2017
This madness began with scientists using science to push a political agenda along with the people who benefited from that agenda, politically and financially. When people began to see that science was being used to profit a few by promoting an agenda, the scientists promoting that agenda began to promote an additional idea that they were being persecuted by anti-science people.

Now we have thousands of people protesting in the streets against the anti-science movement, an idea created by the people who are bastardizing science in the service of an agenda.

Actual science has little chance when the scientists are simply using science to promote their personal agenda.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2017
Deniers are the same goobers who fell for trickle-down, Star Wars, Enron, The Bush Wars, and led us into the Great Republican Economic Meltdown.
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (27) Apr 22, 2017
Progressives don't care when fascist trolls like you accuse them of being "intolerant" of fascist trolls like you. Only your fellow fascist trolls care, because that's what your alternative facts fantasyland is made of.

Meanwhile you fascists are wrecking the world right on schedule.

rrander:
Global warming Marxists

EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (25) Apr 22, 2017
Or the vast majority of actual climate scientists are right and we have changed the climate, and are continuing to do so. More to the point, they're right that changing our pollution can slow or avert the climate changes already underway from being permanent.

But of course we should consider your totally unqualified, fact-free handwaving to be correct with our civilization at stake.

PhyOrgSux:
Extreme fluctuations in weather

EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (26) Apr 22, 2017
Primarily though lunatic "chemtrails" and other 100% wrong BS like yours gets equal treatment with thousands of actual climate scientists who disprove BS like yours on a daily basis.

Here's just one academic study published in a peer reviewed journal disproving your chemtrails BS - and destroying your straight up lie that scientists refuse to study that BS:
https://carnegies...-experts

A sane person would stop spouting your obvious lunacy once confronted with simple facts like these. Unless they're being paid to spout. Are you being paid to spout?

julianpenrod:
Among other things

EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (28) Apr 22, 2017
No. What the people marching today are asking for is for science to be treated reality and "alternative facts" lies to be at best ignored and, when there's time, treated with contempt. A grip on facts, not on opinion. The "orthodoxy" is what the alternative facts liars are pushing - especially the theocrats among you.

The climate is changing *unlike* how it ever has: vastly more quickly. That's extincting species at a record pace, since mutations don't keep up with the environment. Many of the marchers today work with various resilience operations to "cope with the change", more necessary now that deniers have lost over 15 years getting worse.

Also, the Paris agreement like several other hard won priors is working coordination. Climate policy is a rare example of all countries having an existential stake in the overarching goal of thinning the Greenhouse, and that's forced cooperation.

ab3a:
Movements like this [/
EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (26) Apr 22, 2017
How many of the deniers on this site are paid to deny in public? Which of them work for aggressive chaos propagandists like Russia, the world's largest petroleum producer, or the global corporations dependent on oil/gas sales - and threatened by damages claims for the harm they've caused? Which of them are simply trolled into action by "friendly agents" of those powers?

gkam:
This is a science site.

MR166
2.9 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2017
Pro-oil trolls eh, EMC if there is one thing that I have found to be true over the years it's that fact that if you want to know what the liberals/progressives are doing just listen to what they accuse the conservatives of doing. The so called "Tolerant" left cannot even listen to another opinion without classifying it as hate speach
gkam
2.6 / 5 (18) Apr 22, 2017
Why are conservatives so recalcitrant? Is it because of their reaction to the future being invented by liberals?

We have more proof for AGW than they did for "WMD!", but they call us wrong.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2017
The Carnegie Science site entry, among other things, only says experts say chemtrails are not real. The same "experts" who failed to disprove the lie of mass production of banned weapons systems in Iraq? Or the experts who caused incidences of peanut allergy to explode in number?
Note that the Carnegie "study" did not examine chemtrails, but only polled "experts" who also did not study them, but merely said that they could be claimed to be something else. Just because you can claim that, under certain circumstances, something conventional can resemble something else doesn't mean that the alternative is not real! They also refer to long lived "condensation trails", but then refer to the feature as "imagined"!
They also say that "76 of 77 participating scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret spraying program". If it's a "secret program", they wouldn't have easily encountered evidence!
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (19) Apr 22, 2017
I just listened to your playground projection without classifying it "hate speech" (learn to spell). You pro-oil trolls are so incompetent at either opinion or fact, anything but tolerance and hatred, that you can't understand how people who are tolerant of other people who mean them no harm are of course intolerant of you people who mean others harm. It's all word games to you that you can't even understand.

MR166:
Pro-oil trolls

EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2017
It's not the "Carnegie Science site entry", it's an article published in the peer reviewed science journal _Environmental Review Letters_. Your "if it's secret nobody knows" is a tautology (look it up). The site entry did in its reporting quote the published scientists:

"The research team says they do not hope to sway those already convinced that there is a secret spraying program—as these individuals usually only reject counter-evidence as further proof of their theories—but rather to establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse."

They're talking about you.

BTW, of course they're not the WMD experts who did disprove the Iraqi WMD lies. But it was trolls like you who cheered Bush/Cheney, who you voted for twice, for lying us into the Iraq War. And peanuts? Why would anyone dignify your rambling like that? You don't know anything about expertise, like "specialization".

julianpenrod:
The Carnegie Science site entry
fidh
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2017
Is it a march for climate change or SCIENCE?
Supporting one requires rolling back to medieval times.
While the other, science, means supporting everything from space exploration to innovative wheel designs to climate change.

I'm thoroughly confused because not a single article I read mentioned NASA yet every single one mentioned climate change and Trump.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2017
"every single one mentioned climate change and Trump."
-------------------------------------

The Earth's two biggest threats.
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2017
It is a march for science. Climate change science is one of the most important sciences, because ignoring it is paving our collapse back to medieval times.

The science marches around the country and around the world are highlighting climate change partly because they're marching on Earth Day. Also because Trump is one of the worst villains paving our collapse back to medieval times.

BTW I couldn't really understand what you were talking about in your garbled post. Who is "supporting climate change"?

fidh:
Is it a march

unrealone1
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2017
Science...
Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months.
Can any one do a search on Google and select IMAGES..
ab3a
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2017
You don't get to vote on reality.

Get over it.


I am not denying that reality. I am saying that everyone is making a terrible mistake by tying that reality to a course of carbon dioxide indulgences (look up the history of that term) that would bankrupt most western nations. Most of the scientists and engineers are in those western nations. If you bankrupt those economies, it is very unlikely that there will be a solution at all.

I agree that the climate is changing. I agree that humanity is a causal factor. I disagree on methods of remediation. The going proposal is for some idiotic self-certified or government-certified market for those indulgences. Methods like this have not worked in the past. There is no reason to think they will work now.

Get Over It.

gkam
2 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2017
Google? What'cha got?

Pictures of back porch thermometers?
manfredparticleboard
3.3 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2017
" If you bankrupt those economies, it is very unlikely that there will be a solution at all.
I agree that the climate is changing. I agree that humanity is a causal factor. I disagree on methods of remediation. The going proposal is for some idiotic self-certified or government-certified market for those indulgences. Methods like this have not worked in the past. There is no reason to think they will work now."

Sorry...whats the US debt level again? And what about other western countries level of debt? Not to mention China..bankruptcy is pretty much thier own doing.The party is going to be over soon and like an alcoholic who just wants one more round, business want's one more reporting period of record growth. Carbon just happens to linked to the growth addiction. And anyone who likes the jobs figures and daily metrics to feel safe is just making the problem worse. Addicts first have to admit there's a problem before they can admit why past failures happen.
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2017
No, you're asserting "carbon dioxide indulgences" - you explain what you're talking about.

There are no "agreed methods" of CO2 remediation. There are the beginnings of research on sinking more carbon from emissions, and the barest beginnings on extracting carbon from the oceans or atmosphere into sinks.

There are also the barest beginnings of any internalization of the externalized costs of CO2. The most common one is a carbon tax (cost per g CO2 paid to a government) or other increased prices for emissions like carbon markets. There is nothing like "agreed methods", but internalizing the costs of CO2 pollution damage is clearly a remedy to the customary perverse incentives that externalize those costs, so polluters don't pay (typically the victims pay). These are not "indulgences", if that's what you're referring to. These are ways of forcing the costs to be paid by the polluter.

ab3a:
I am not denying

MR166
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2017
The very fact that they had to change the threat from global warming to climate change due to the 20 year pause in temperatures should clue even an average person into fact that the models and predictions were all wrong.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2017
Now every natural occurrence is due to climate change. The natural has become unnatural and a bad omen of future apocalypses. Yes sir-ree bob, the new system is a lot better than casting chicken bones like the high priests of science did in the past.
EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2017
Yes, most scientists and engineers are in Western nations. Carbon cap & trade will not bankrupt these nations. It's the damage from climate change that could easily bankrupt (and worse) these nations, even before the changed climate itself destroys the infrastructure, unleashes rampant violence and unlimited war that destroys the civilization if not the species.

Paying to reduce pollution rather than the full cost of polluting funds engineers and scientists in these countries that make efficiencies and alternatives. It is in fact the way to lead western countries out of the self-destruction and into leadership in the improved industries. Instead of coal mining we have windmill engineers. That's not bankruptcy, that's winning the modern era.

ab3a:
Get over it.
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2017
No, only you said every natural occurrence is due to climate change. Your strawman is stupid.

MR166:
Now every natural occurrence

manfredparticleboard
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2017
The very fact that they had to change the threat from global warming to climate change due to the 20 year pause in temperatures should clue even an average person into fact that the models and predictions were all wrong.


That change was done because of the popular opinions that couldn't reconcile extreme winter conditions and global temperature increases. The use of the term 'Warming' didn't reflect what the public were experiencing at times so it was changed to better reflect the situation.
And yes the amount of heat going into the oceans was not as well modeled as was reflected by the rate of atmospheric heating, but it didn't mean that the planet wasn't warming at an alarming rate. Yes it is alarming, and should be taken seriously. The science is still a better guide than business leaders as to what should and needs to be done.
EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (18) Apr 22, 2017
That is not a fact. Temperatures have continued to rise.

People started talking about "climate change" was first because Bush's Republican strategist Frank Luntz decided those words would scare people less so promoted it among Republicans and their polluter sponsors to pollute the media discourse with it:
https://www.thegu...techange

But that was a bad strategy, because "climate change" is indeed a terrifying result of global warming.

Everything you say is a tired lie. Do you make your living pushing these tired lies?

MR166:
The very fact/q]
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2017
Actually the change from "global warming" to "climate change" was done by the Bush/Cheney administration according to the strategy designed by Republican consultant Frank Luntz:
https://www.thegu...techange

The goal was to confuse people and scare them less in 2003 while the science was becoming not just conclusive but overwhelmingly accepted by scientists. It backfired because "climate change" is actually a more accessible idea to Americans who mostly enjoy their local climate and fear change, rather than the "more Summertime" that they inferred from "global warming", a scientific term about an increasing planetary average.

manfredparticleboard:
That change was done

manfredparticleboard
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2017
Fair enough! I'll concede your explanation has better referenced origins.
KBK
1 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2017
You don't get to vote on reality.

Get over it.


Sorry.. you do get to vote.

Peer reviewed "unassailable methodology" tests in parapsychology have shown irreconcilable results. All involved agree the test is unassailable and the regimen is perfect.

One group does not believe in parapsychology. They get negative results.
One group is ambivalent: They get ambivalent (50/50) results.
One group believes in parapsychology: They get positive results.

Same test.

This was done over and over in multiple ways. Any way you can possibly imagine - in an effort to overturn the results. All while retaining perfect scientific validity in testing regimens and peer review.

Every time the results were the same.

The answer is that humans and their thoughts and intent shape the reality that is in the future and slipping into the 'now'.

Calling bullshit, is perfectly fine. Reality allows for that.

But it is DEAD WRONG - a half story.

Paradox. Quantum reality.
KBK
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2017
Essentially, the hardcore realist objectivists (dogmatic scientism) can go suck giant stinking rotting bags of dead donkey balls.

As they don't know jack shit about the nature of reality.

Too much denial, too much weakness of the mind, too little intellectual reach, and it is turned on their fellow man.

Which makes it a scientific totalitarianism, a psycho fascism of a sort.

And, the actual reality allows for that.

It also allows one to very correctly tell them to ~fuck off~, as they are completely wrong.
ab3a
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2017
There was a notion in the medieval period of the Catholic Church where priests would sell "indulgences" to lessen the time in purgatory for those who would sin. It made a lot of money for the church, but it corrupted the church and the population terribly. It was one of several issues that fueled Martin Luther's reformation.

The parallels with today's carbon dioxide offset markets are quite striking. It didn't work then, and frankly I don't see what's different with this scheme.

Look, those who have read what I've posted realize that I am not arguing against renewable energy. I am not arguing against nuclear power. I am not even arguing against research in to cleaner burning fossil fuel technologies such as methane fuel cells. I am all for improvements, wherever they come from. I am generally against government mandated changes.

There is very little our governments can or should do (besides research) to facilitate this.
fidh
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2017
Emcee, I find it extremely hard to believe that climate science is the most important one as every single other 'discipline' except climate science are required to make things better.
E.g. if we could have clean(er) and even more nuclear power we wouldn't need to burn coal. Will climate scientists make that happen?
What about more efficient vehicles that spend less fuel or non-polluting fuel? Not something climate scientists will make happen.

So again, why support the climate science when simple progress and healthy attitude towards our environment will automatically take care of the issues? Hell, cut the funding to climate change research and put the money into stem education and there would be more environmental benefits than from climate change research.

In case it again passed by you again, why is climate change the poster boy for the work of Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and thousands of other genius individuals?
ddaye
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2017
The politicians are properly called "corporatist" not "populist." The big carbon energy corporations fund the science denial and dominate the funding of elections compared to citizen spending. Those politicians appeal to populism to build an electoral base for their corporate policies --not the other way around. And populists on the left fully accept climate science and the jobs and economic gains that a transition to alternative energy brings everywhere it's being done.
ddaye
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2017
cleaner burning fossil fuel technologies such as methane fuel cells. I am all for improvements, wherever they come from. I am generally against government mandated changes.

If this were a mere philosophical issue you would have a point. However the science says changes must come far faster than markets naturally evolve. That's why government is needed. If an enemy army were capturing our waters we wouldn't let vendors and consumers work it out with the invaders --we'd have the government defend them. This is the same situation.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2017
Wow, that's the first time I've ever seen anyone in these Phys.org discussions ever concede a point in a debate. Fair play to you!

It's enough encouragement to keep me shoveling truth at the trolls even if it's only for the benefit of spectators.

manfredparticleboard:
Fair enough!

EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2017
You're not even wrong. Reality is reality. Climate science is not parapsychology. Conflicting results in parapsychology research mean only that the methodology is incomplete. If they even exist: citations from peer reviewed journals or it didn't happen.

You are just insisting that your delusion control reality rather than accept the fact that humans are changing the climate catastrophically. That is really delusional, even schizophrenic.

KBK:
[Sorry.. you do get to vote.

EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2017
Yes, most adequately educated people in Europe and the USA are familiar with the history of Church indulgences. Sin is a human construct contrived from metaphysics. Grams of CO2 warming the Earth and changing climate - and fewer grams slowing it - are natural facts independent of human constructs. That makes all the difference.

I celebrate our limited government and its role as the people protecting ourselves from that and those which would do us harm. I celebrate the distributed power of markets to find efficiencies and consent. I also understand that markets without government mandates have had their chance and totally failed to protect us from the people who have (knowingly even) run up this Greenhouse pollution that would do us cataclysmic harm.

Carbon markets under a government cap pragmatically harness our systems to protect ourselves. It's in fact absolutely the best way we have, simple economics and basic government.

ab3a:
There was a notion
fidh
1.5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2017
ddaye, is there an actual estimated timeline for when the shit will hit the fan? I'm asking since you seem to have knowledge which let's you state that normal progression wouldn't be fast enough.

Btw, before one of the others will get their panties in a bunch, again, I'm not denying climate change. I'm not one of "them" that you need to indoctrinate. I'm just asking questions when something doesn't make sense.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2017
http://www.zerohe...ng-bette

The dichotomy between left and right is getting serious. The most amazing part of this is that the left views the right as violent. Look in the mirror boys and girls!
arcmetal
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2017
The very fact that they had to change the threat from global warming to climate change due to the 20 year pause in temperatures should clue even an average person into fact that the models and predictions were all wrong.


There has been no "change". One is the cause for the other. If you can't understand which is which, then you shouldn't be commenting, instead you should be studying further.
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
You're off topic (and off your rocker). Your article says the "left" got a major beat down, but you think the "left" is the violent ones.

MR166:
The dichotomy

EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2017
The shit is already hitting the fan. SE Florida through Virginia is already being inundated by the Atlantic. Species are extincting at a record rate. Unregulated (but subsidized) markets are only thickening the Greenhouse we've known for generations would destroy us.

You say you're not a climate denier, but earlier you seemed (in a largely incoherent post) to say people marching "for" (or probably rather "against") climate change are against science, would roll us back to medieval times, and now an explanation would be to "indoctrinate" you.

You're really going to have to start making more sense before just "asking questions" (the hallmark of the denier troll) that honest and sane people already know the answer to.

fidh:
ddaye, is there an actual estimated timeline.

EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2017
No, climate science is the most important, because it defines the problem to solve. There are many ways to solve it, even if we don't yet know which they are. There are plenty of sciences that are important in their own right but not as important as defining the details of the Greenhouse problem and the ways to fix it, and hot to tell that we are fixing it.

"Simple progress and a healthy attitude towards our environment" isn't enough. They have already failed badly.

Also, if you're going to ask unintelligible questions like that "poster boy" one, don't bother. They don't make any sense. Though they do show that your questions are coming from a place that probably can't parse answers.

fidh:
Emcee, I find it extremely hard

fidh
1.3 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2017
1. https://tidesandc...=8534720
Linear increase, not exponential. Care to link something that shows exponential increase?
2. According to articles on physorg extinction is more often related to human expansion/enroachment, than climate change. Do you have undisputed sources that claim otherwise?
3. Yes, the CO2 levels are unparalleled and looking at our neighboring planet, it's a pretty bad thing.
What's the timeline though?
P.s. if the human species in it's entirety stopped pumping CO2 (etc.) out over night, then we would have to roll back to medieval times or even earlier. Since we really do not have the technology to sustain what we have without making the problem worse. The only solution is technological and scientific advancement which is something that climate change science doesn't contribute to. March for SCIENCE could have shown that people now think science is more important than military, but it became something else.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
Not so.

I think you are unaware of the real science and the opportunities to get clean now. Our PV system powers our house and car as well. Doing so saved us over $3k last year, giving the solar system a four-year payback.

It is not only practical now, but profitable to go clean.
fidh
3 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
Are you saying it's actually possible for, let's say 50%, of households (and industries) to swap to solar at it's current price and maybe more importantly, without it having an adverse impact on
the environment?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2017
Technically, yes, but not if limited to solar. We have to tie in other sources, such as wind geothermal, landfill gas, increased efficiency, and other measures as we are doing now.

We can't do it immediately because we do not have the supply of materials to do that today. We have facilities to build and operate. It will take a some years to evolve, since investments in infrastructure are slow to occur.
Dingbone
Apr 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2017
if the human species in it's entirety stopped pumping CO2 (etc.) out over night, then we would have to roll back to medieval times or even earlier.

Erm, no.

This is a false dichotomy. No one is asking humanity to stop doing what it's doing overnight. The switchover can happen (and is happening as we speak) without anyone having to forego anything. The 'mideval' thing is pure hyperbole.

Are you saying it's actually possible for, let's say 50%, of households (and industries) to swap to solar at it's current price and maybe more importantly, without it having an adverse impact on
the environment?

As compared to continuing with today's setup (and why just solar? all renewables are in the mix)? On both counts a most definite: yes (and there's no need to stop at 50%. 100% is easily doable)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
This is the very basis of their job and scientific method. Don't tell me, that if the YouTube remains flooded with videos like this one, that it's just a feeling of some conspirators.

OK, you made some serious allegations without any kind of backup.

In effect you're Trump-ing.

And all you post is...what... a youtube video? Are you serious? Scientists can keep a worldwide conspiracy so tight under wraps that no one knows about it but a youtube video 'exposing it all' goes unprotested?
Really? You got your complimentary tinfoli hat at the Earthling Club?

Jeez. if this is the kind of 'intelligence' the US education system produces I'm not really surprised by anything that goes on there anymore.
Dingbone
Apr 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2017
- I linked video.

Ya know...I could link a video to all kinds of stuff. even an ISIS recruitment video. Know how much that supports that Allah is real and wants infidels killed? Not much.
Try building one of these contraptions. Know what? They don't work. There's any number of ways to fake a video. Wonder why there's never any papers on these things? Or anyone commercializing them?
And there's any number of sites where you can upload these papers to make them public.

This is not what the ignorance means. Ignorance is just - well - an ignorance. When some evidence is submitted, another one is asked. This is what the ignorance is.

Erm...whut? Would you mind structuring sentences so that they make sense? You're just corroborating my point on the US education system with every post you make, you know that, don't you?
Dingbone
Apr 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
says professor Tony Trewavas

Ya know...when a professor of biology talks about particle physics it's not exactly the best reference.

If they want to get money from public, they should also do something for public (and life environment, etc).

Gee. Guess why they are marching? Exactly for this reason so they can CONTINUE doing those things (you know, like resarching cures or how to get cheap power, or how to make your internet faster, or ... )

So why are you having an issue with this march (other than that you're dumb as rocks an don't like it that 99% of humanity is smarter than you, I mean)
Dingbone
Apr 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2017
If he would talk about it as a professor of particle physics, he would be professor of biology today.

That makes no sense on so many levels - it isn't even funny.

If the scientists are so convinced, that these things don't work, how they can know about it without any papers on these things?

*Sigh*, here's for stupid: Why is no one WRITING papers on these things? Anyone can write papers, you know? If someone wrote a paper then someone could do the checking. (or if the people posting these videos are so sure, why aren't they just building the stuff, feeding it into the grid and getting rich from the feed-in tarrifs? Same for the cold fusion cooks. They are claiming they have working reactors for decades, now. Putting down a power line should be within their means.)

The renewables are utilized for twenty years already and the portion of fossil fuels on energy production still remains the same

So? Know what the situation would be like otherwise?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2017
The very fact that they had to change the threat from global warming to climate change due to the 20 year pause in temperatures should clue even an average person into fact that the models and predictions were all wrong.


That change was done because.....
Because a Conservative political consultant by the name of Frank Luntz, while working for the GW Bush re-election campaign , determined that the term "global warming" carried too much emotional context and caused people to identify with "liberal" views, whereas the term "climate change" was more neutral and identified with a "conservative" approach to the warming planet. It had nothing to do with what was happening with the planet, and everything to do with a conservative political agenda.
fidh
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2017
Technically, yes, but not if limited to solar. We have to tie in other sources, such as wind geothermal, landfill gas, increased efficiency, and other measures as we are doing now.

We can't do it immediately because we do not have the supply of materials to do that today. We have facilities to build and operate. It will take a some years to evolve, since investments in infrastructure are slow to occur.

In other words, it's not possible today with what we have and since you didn't mention the price issue, i.e. 5-10k usd per household to implement solar it's clearly not cheap enough either as the vast majority of the (global) top 50% can't afford that down payment.
So again, requires advancements from what we have now before it's feasible on a scale that has significant impact. Advancements that are not reliant on climate change science.
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
No-one is denying anything. Air quality has certainly improved in England since Victorian times. The big block quarry at Yonaguni island south of Japan has been underwater for 10,000 years. Ditto for Dwarka in the Gulf of Cambay, one of the seven oldest cities in India. Nature will have its way. Most of what is happening with climate change is natural. This solar system is still reeling from that ancient cataclysmic collision event that saw the creation of the asteroid belt and the continuing re-organization of the planetary orbits. That solar event of April 2010 might very well have been the death throes of the final erratic orbit of Planet X as it collided with the other side of our sun. Drastic measures like the cessation of forest exploitation and stopping the production of non-recyclable and non-biodegradable packaging that's destined for the landfill aren't going to happen overnight, but I guess these protests will maintain the conscious need for diligence in that regard.
FSM
4.1 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
It is such a shame that science marches need to happen. But I suppose we have always looked to Gods,myths and monsters for explanations of the world around us. It is just so much of that is behind us.
Well, my vote is for the men and women that work to bring to light a greater understanding of the world around us! Thank you!
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2017
No-one is denying anything.

Uh-huh.

Most of what is happening with climate change is natural.

So you're denying the basic physics and the data?

This solar system is still reeling from that ancient cataclysmic collision event that saw the creation of the asteroid belt and the continuing re-organization of the planetary orbits. That solar event of April 2010 might very well have been the death throes of the final erratic orbit of Planet X as it collided with the other side of our sun.

Oh, good grief. Is this a poe? Or are people really this insane?
Bart_A
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2017
Anyone who has their eyes open can see that these "protests" are NOT about science. It is all about global control, intolerance, ideology, yes and even religion.

EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2017
The marchers are insisting that actual science by actual scientists without interest conflicts be treated as fact, and the alternatives to science offered by people like you be rejected as fake news. Intolerance of BS is a virtue in a scientist, and of most other people too.

Bart_A:
Anyone

snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
yup, not pro science march , just the antifa ,anti-trump lot again.. whats a fa ? i know !! f#*k all ,
PhysicsMatter
1.9 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2017
By now, major universities in the US and all Ivy League became nothing but a corporate outfits pushing good old American mediocrity, anti-intellectualism and their institutions already fell out from the era of enlightenment back onto old scholastic revelation based shallow behaviorist's understanding of reality of the world in quasi religious terms of ideology and that absolute scientific truths are determined by capital markets.

In academia almost no economists dare to speak against capital markets and those who do are treated as blasphemers and their tenures cut short, the same is in medicine and pharma and biotechnology.

Scientific dogmatism [aligned with corporate profit] reigns supreme, argument of power and money prevails over a power of rational argument, which has been eradicated from scientific discourse decades ago. Aristotle system of syllogisms that gave us modern scientific foundation has been perverted back into a Sophistry of of proving anything for money.
Bart_A
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2017
As if the marchers are interested in actual science by actual scientists without interest conflicts be treated as fact. Open your eyes, MC. Get real!

MR166
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
PhysicsMatter I gave your last post a 5. The funny thing is that everything that you said could point to climate change as a fraud or CO2 as a real danger. The interpretation just depends ones point of view just as ab3a pointed out.
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2017
"As if" does not constitute an argument. It's *literally* nothing but alternative facts, fake news. You can't think your way out of a bitmap bag, and you want your way on American science. Sad!

Bart_A:
As if

Porgie
2 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2017
When it goes widely unreported that the polar ice caps gained 155,000 square miles in 2014 and again increased in 2015 you wonder about their motives. When a country who has measured its global temperature in the same place for 20 years is asked to move where they are taking it because its showing a decline in temperature you have to wonder about their integrity. When reams of data are redacted, edited, or destroyed you have to be concerned who they are helping.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2017
When it goes widely unreported that the polar ice caps gained 155,000 square miles in 2014 and again increased in 2015 you wonder about their motives.

What do you mean 'unreported'?
https://www.nasa....-maximum

And note that despite LOCAL gains GLOBALLY there is still a major loss. And GLOBAL is where it counts.
To put this in perspective: Just because you've had one unusual cold day in February at your place does not invalidate global warming.

Global. Local. Learn the difference.

When reams of data are redacted, edited, or destroyed you have to be concerned who they are helping.

Source? I'd think a few scientists would cry 'foul' about people destroying their data.

I'm calling 'Trump' on that one ("a Trump" = making BS up without a shred of supporting evidence)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2017
On a separate note: I just love the slogan some supposedly chanted at the rally:

"What do we want? Science! When do we want it? After peer review!"
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
When the data does't fit the agenda guess what changes?

https://realclima...t-seems/

EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2017
Deplorables have their own alternate facts, even whole blogs. Corporate sponsorship has its privileges.

Nature doesn't notice, and continues to warm the globe as sunlight is trapped by ever more Greenhouse.

When the data

antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
Glad to see this march for science, hopefully they can put an end to the worse thing to happen to science, the AGW Cult.
OdinsAcolyte
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
Neither politics nor consensus makes good science.
Just the fact Jack. And the wit to perceive them.
feierbach
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
@rrrander - Your rant sounds like the rant that has been the false news of the oil and gas industry for the last 30 years. That, my friend, is where the money is against climate change science. They profit at the World's loss. Now the US, under Trump, wants to cut funding for climate science. Let's treat everyone like mushrooms; feed them BS and keep them in the dark.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
Yea, call valid questions about data propaganda from those big energy companies. They just want to hurt all of those mom and pop companies trying to produce green energy. Yea, green energy companies are all small and have utterly no connection with big business and government.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2017
the false news of the oil and gas industry for the last 30 years. That, my friend, is where the money is against climate change science.

So, tell us the "real" news. When did you stop burning oil and gas?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2017
We will all do so, . . . and you will, too.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2017
" Yea, green energy companies are all small and have utterly no connection with big business and government."
----------------------------------

I suppose there is a reason for you building that strawman.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2017
"I suppose there is a reason for you building that strawman."

Yup, any doubts that are expressed about warming are assumed to be propaganda from big business. Whereas renewable energy is never connected with the influence that corporations exert on governments.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2017
Why do you make ridiculous statements?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
Oh, good grief. Is this a poe? Or are people really this insane?
Velikovsky, 'Worlds in Collision'.
I'm calling 'Trump' on that one ("a Trump" = making BS up without a shred of supporting evidence)
Sorry but we are borking you for making up an inane name-word. Why dont you paint your face like a skull and go lay down in front of a nuke train?
FredJose
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2017
Man made global warming is nothing compared to what is coming:
Rev 16:19-21
The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. And God remembered Babylon the great and gave her the cup of the wine of the fury of His wrath.
20 Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found.
21 And huge hailstones, about a hundred pounds each, rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous.
The real FALSE news is that there is no God, yet mankind choose to overlook and in fact
suppress the established scientific fact that their life cannot have a naturalistic origin. Life only comes from life. Life does not arise from non-living materials all by itself without any external intelligent design and construction.
20 Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found.

This means an earthquake so big all over the world that nothing will be able to withstand it. Radical transformation.

Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2017
Anyone who has their eyes open can see that these "protests" are NOT about science. It is all about global control, intolerance, ideology, yes and even religion.


Bart_A engages in fecal regurgitation, one of the nastiest, filthiest addictions to ever plague delusionals. Not to mention what is does to a person's breath.....
EmceeSquared
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2017
No. This is a science site. Prove that your predictions are correct, or at least disprove that this competing theory is wrong:

"43. Resound around Aesir
Gullinkambi,
and wakes yeoman's
hinge at Herjafather;
another yell
before earth below
soot-red rooster
in the halls of Heljar.

44. Barks Garmr load
before Gnípahelli;
the leash may break,
and Freki then runs.
Much she knows,
forth I see longer,
about Ragnarok
the mighty Sigtíva."

FredJose:
Man made

EmceeSquared
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2017
No, you're simply pathological. You built an indefensible strawman - nobody but you claimed that green companies are only small ones. When confronted with your fallacy you devolve into inane gibberish. Unless you're not pathological, but this is how you get paid. Could be both.

MR166:
"I suppose

MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2017
EMC^2 You scoff at any dissenting opinions and take anything presented to you by the big green machine as gospel truth. In truth, your beliefs resemble a religion more than a science.
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2017
No, you liar. I scoff at your specific posts for the specific reasons that I supplied: they're fallacious BS, and really stupid. Lies. Don't puff your garbage up into "dissenting opinions" when they're just lies.

MR166:
EMC^2 You scoff

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2017
Hello fred
This means an earthquake so big all over the world that nothing will be able to withstand it. Radical transformation
"Daniel 4:10-11 I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."

"Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

... So it seems that your god thinks this earth of ours is flat so Im pretty sure we're ok.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2017
No. This is a science site. Prove that your predictions are correct, or at least disprove that this competing theory is wrong
Actually freds god killed your gods, including the mighty Saliva, by burning all your sacred shrines and building churches on top of them.

What are you gonna do about it? You may want to consult Burzum.
Dingbone
Apr 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2017
@Fred the f***wit,

This means an earthquake so big all over the world that nothing will be able to withstand it. Radical transformation.


Nope. If there is a wee one, let's hope that it is very confined. Perhaps to the few square metres that you inhabit. Wouldn't like anyone else to be harmed. Just give me your address, and I'll pray to {something or other} that it only affects you. Badly. Might do us all a favour.

EmceeSquared
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2017
No, that sign is completely correct. Science doesn't test "alternative facts". The facts are data describing observations. Science doesn't test the data, it tests a hypothesis, and alternative hypotheses when a hypothesis is disproved.

There are no "alternate facts". Except in the propaganda of Trumpy liars. Explanations for global warming that aren't supported by science, while the Greenhouse theory remains well tested but not disproved, aren't facts.

Dingbone:
Just this

EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2017
Nah, Fred's god hasn't killed anything or anyone, except as a schizophrenic's illusion doubling as a team mascot inspiring human killers. Of course Fred's fellow believers did kill a lot of the Norse gods' believers, burnt their churches. But then, lightning continues to burn down plenty of Fred's churches despite Thor's twilight.

None of which disproves any of these hypothetical gods. Because metaphysics can't be disproved, which is why it's at best silly to post about them seriously on a science site. People are entitled to hear in their heads whatever they're willing to accept. But they're not really entitled to blab gibberish about them to people who aren't willing, and certainly not entitled to tell unwilling people what to believe or to do.

TheGhostofOtto1923:
Actually freds god

Bart_A
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2017
Why is it that liberals hate religion and call believers all kinds of horrible things, on a science website? What's with them? They should not even care about religion. But they do. Even those who are self-proclaimed scientists.

Real scientists know that there could be a God, there could have been a Creator of life. They cannot deny this, because they cannot prove such denials.

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2017

Why is it that believers in the unprovable try to peddle their stuff on a science site which deals with reality and proof?
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2017
Why is it that liberals hate religion and call believers all kinds of horrible things, on a science website?

Nice stereotype there, Bart. Not very christian of you, but as we've seen, not many people who call themselves christians actually follow christianity. Of course, many liberals are religious - my experience is they make better christians than conservatives, but that's my opinion.

I guess we can't say that there is no God. However, we can say objectively that there is no Christian God (one that is good, omnipotent and omniscient). The bible says so.

We can also say that the existence of God is uninteresting - it doesn't really answer any questions. From a more philosophical standpoint, we can also say, objectively, that christianity isn't the source of morality - that is, morality doesn't come from the christian religion. Again, the bible says so. So why bother with it?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
I guess we can't say that there is no God

We also can't say there are no froodlefrums. Does that make froodlefrums real or relevant? No.
I'm certain a lot of people could start writing books upon books on froodlefrums or start worldwide froodlefrum-appreciation organizations - but would that change anything about the reality of froodlefrums? No.
(That this isn't just theoretical: Try to explain the difference between the Bible/Christianity and Star-Wars material/Jedi-Religion. Just that the latter openly admit to having made stuff up isn't enough)
cardzeus
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing...?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
and we create a better world for nothing...?

What do you mean 'for nothing'. I would call having a better world something that has value for the one creating it (never mind any descendants).

That#s the whole thing with codified religions - you don't really need them as moral guides. A bit of thought will come up with a good ethical framework without a need to invoke a fantasy/deity.
Just start from simple premises like "I don't want to die" and "I don't want to be stressed" and you can rigorously derive entire workable societal frameworks from that.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
Most liberals don't hate religion (maybe some do, but any random sample will include some who do). Lots of liberals have grown to hate you theocrats, who insist on forcing your unprovable metaphysics on everyone else through government. Even as you insist on "small government, out of our private lives". Easy to hate people like that, and a fluid religion you use merely for power regardless of the harm and hypocrisy.

So calling believers on all the horrible things you are just comes with the territory you create for yourselves.

Bart_A:
Why is it that liberals hate religion and call believers all kinds of horrible things

EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
I think that was a tongue in cheek joke. After all, they say it's "a better world". I think they realize that's its own reward, and not really "for nothing".

antialias_physorg:
What do you mean

EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
Hence no response to my challenge above to the religionist FredJose, disproving the competing "Ragnarok" hypothesis in favor of their "apocalypse" hypothesis. Not even from fellow religionists.

These religionists are merely trolls on a science site. They are not interested in meaningful discussion, only provoking flames and spreading their singleminded propaganda.

That commitment to disruption should be grounds for removal by the site operators.

antialias_physorg:
We also can't say there are no froodlefrums

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
That commitment to disruption should be grounds for removal by the site operators.

Well, it is expressly against comment section guidelines.
https://phys.org/...omments/

- Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).
- Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed.


But policing the comment sections hasn't been a strong suit of physorg staff for some years. (I'm sure there would be a couple volunteers, though)
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
I expect that flamewars = clickbait = ad revenue as elsewhere. Dereliction of custodial duty.

antialias_physorg:
But policing the comment sections

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
I expect that flamewars = clickbait = ad revenue as elsewhere.

I dunno. I do remember that they used to police the site quite stringently when I first came here. Short comments (1-2 liners), any kind of swear word (even if it wasn't used as a swear but a direct quote from a source you use to make a point), political discussions, crank science discussions - and posts were removed.

People got banned quite frequently (some, like GhostofOtto or Zeph have had to reregister and sockpuppet after bans so many times you can't even count it anymore). The crowd that was here was small but posting quite high quality stuff almost every post.

Though the present isn't all bad. I'm noticing more quality posters again as of late. And the 'ignore' function they added was a tremendous improvement.
Mayday
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
Science should embrace skeptical questioning. All of it. It strikes me that these protesters seek to "freeze" science at our current level of understanding, closing the door to all opposing thought. Why choose now? What if we had frozen our knowledge 100 or 200 years ago. I am in favor of free exploration of new ideas, theories, and conjecture because I believe that is how we will advance.

Re: climate change; the protesters likewise seem to seek to "freeze" the climate at some arbitrary and yet unnamed date. Is it today? 1980? If one seeks to stop climate change, the entire history of the Earth's climate argues rather forcefully against your prospects of success. I advocate for adaptation and preparation for much wider climate variability than is currently practiced.
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Science does embrace skeptical questioning. What science rejects, though not forcefully enough, is trolling. Just because it's a question doesn't make it a valid question, and lots of them are from people who are not skeptics but just disrupters, seeking not answers but to push an antiscience agenda. Just making scientific discussions more difficult with baseless assertions, unevidenced conspiracy theories, dittohead repetition of industry propaganda, ignoring facts and logic to the contrary, valuing only flamewars.

There is absolutely nothing about these protesters indicating they seek to "freeze science" at our current level of understanding. They do seek to protect science from trolls.

The ones working against climate change seek to protect the climate from the extremely fast and disruptive changes human activity has caused. That's not arbitrary, it's entirely defined by the moderate climate our civilization depends on. Which is all science.

Mayday:
Science should[/q
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
The [ignore] button protects individual readers from posters they'd identified as worthless or worse. But it lets those posters pollute the discussion, which is a problem for readers with an open mind but without the experience or skills to tell them to ignore these trolls.

It's a bandaid that reduces complaints while leaving the bad quality discussion. And as these Science Marches show, there's both a need and a public appetite for science publishers to take responsibility for the accuracy and scientific integrity of what they publish.


antialias_physorg:
I dunno.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
People got banned quite frequently (some, like GhostofOtto or Zeph have had to reregister and sockpuppet after bans so many times you can't even count it anymore
-Why so bitter you have to make up lies? I was otto1923. I got banned maybe 6-7 years ago for telling dick wolf to go stick himself. I came back as the ghostofotto1923. End of story.

I guess you learned to lie from your political comrades.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
It's a bandaid that reduces complaints while leaving the bad quality discussion.

Yes, but given the very low number of phys.org staff I can see why they aren't doing more to moderate the comment sections. It's the most unimportant part of the site. The number of people who actually read any of the comment sections is probably below 100 per day.

What science rejects, though not forcefully enough, is trolling.

I think science (real scientists doing real scientific work) rejects it by just ignoring it. Actively trying to engage it would just take time away from what they are doing. In effect it would give the trolls a win - because they're in it to disrupt scientific work. Not engaging them (not feeding the trolls) is the best course of action.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
Well, the trolls are winning too much, disrupting science, which is why they've galvanized these March for Science events. Scientific institutions do a lot of work that isn't directly science to protect their ability to do science work, and dealing with trolls is more necessary than ever.

Maybe ignoring them is a net benefit in the immediate, but that has to be part of a strategy to engage the general public more. Journalism has failed democracy, trolls control national education in the US and probably increasingly elsewhere, so science institutions have an existential stake in more engagement to educate and inform the public. They're already far behind the curve.

antialias_physorg:
Actively trying to engage it

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.