What are scientists trying to prove by marching?
Judith Curry provides a nice write up titled "Exactly what are scientists marching ‘for’?", posing the question and providing links to various blogs about the up and coming "March for Science" on Earth day April 22, 2017. We would like to thank Ms. Curry for her great work pulling out these wonderful quotes below.
Some sentiments from scientists supporting the March:
Caroline Weinberg: “[I]t is not possible to ignore policy when it affects not just your jobs but the future of your field.” [link]
Now what is interesting. This quote sums up precisely why the conflict of interest for science researchers is much more influential than climate scientists would like to admit. In fact, the mere act of making that statement as an excuse for attending a political rally shows how deeply these jobs, research money and other conflicts of interest sway the goal of climate scientists away from the real science and toward a politically targeted and biased outcome.
Dr Jacquelyn Gill: “A lot of scientists are realizing that the institutions that fund and support and science in this country . . .are under direct attack.” Trump, she said, “not only doesn’t value our institutions, he doesn’t seem to value evidence-based decision making at all. That is alarming to us.” [link]
Again, "that the institutions that fund and support and [the] science in this country....are under direct attack". Well considering that we have a 122.1 Trillion Dollar national debt bill, that if you stacked 1.00 USD ( 1$ ) bills would stretch from Earth past Uranus, it does not take a scientist to say we need to cut back on some research for now. Is climate change really the biggest threat to our country? Or is the national debt and possible default (bankruptcy) actually a bigger threat to future generations in this country? I think we need to cut some research spending, there are large lists out there of wasteful research spending, including the bulk of climate research which would be perfect to start cutting, see here, here, and here.
Other scientists are very concerned about the March:
Professor Jim Gates, former adviser to Barack Obama, told journalists that the march appeared to lack an end goal – a prerequisite for political action – and would simply be perceived as “science against Trump”. “At least as far as I can detect, there is no theory of action behind this,” he said. “This bothers me tremendously. “To have science represented as this political force I think is just extraordinarily dangerous.” [link]
Robert Young wrote that the march would be perceived as a protest of President Trump and “trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about.” “Trying to recreate the pointedly political Women’s March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends.” [link]
Both of these quotes sum up the reality of today's science in America:
- Much of today's science is funded by government that creates a politicalization of the science;
- The average tax paying folks are asked to pay for this research even though the country is swimming in 122 trillion dollars of national debt;
- The outcome of this research gives politicians the excuse to induce Carbon Taxes on the same people that effectively paid for the research;
- The scientists and politicians who produced the research, jet set across the world speaking at conferences and attending workshops, making their own Co2 footprint considerably larger than the average tax paying folk;
- Even after their claims on anthropogenic climate change become incredibly alarming, the scientists and politicians behind those alarms refuse to live how they preach and lower their carbon footprint;
- Scientists go march to ensure that they get their fair share of government subsidized cash to fund their own ever growing personal carbon footprints, bigger cars, bigger houses, second houses, T-bone steaks, etc.
No wonder there is little faith in climate scientists and the politicians who back them.