Quote (Black XistenZ @ 25 Apr 2017 00:30)
the march for science claims to have protested for independent research that is fact- and data-based instead of based on political view. the march for science wants the voice of scientists be heard and trusted and respected for their professionalism and independence. those are noble and agreeable goals.
but openly being political, openly bringing an anti-trump- and pro-sjw-agenda into the protests is diametrically opposed to those goals and discredits the whole march for science. science should not be politicized, period. there is a subtle but very important difference between holding a sign reading "climate change IS real" and holding a sign that reads "shut up donny". by bringing their personal political point of view into the whole thing, a lot of scientists have shot the march for science and their own credibility as an independent, trustworthy institution in the foot.
dude... seriously? it's a "big lebowski" quote. also, trump trying to defund science that doesn't fit his pro fossil fuel agenda is HIM politicising science. opposing that is just a REaction.
when you're honest about the "noble and agreeable goals" of the march for science, then you'd have to acknowledge that trump ACTIVELY opposes them by trying to defund and silence certain parts of the fact- and data-based science concerning particular topics like man made climate change - topics that HE opposes for obvious political reasons.
or do you really think people are just concerned with climate change because trump thinks it's not real?
Quote (cambovenzi @ 24 Apr 2017 23:14)
Pretending people who disagree with you are purposefully trying to mislead falls right into what I was saying.
People disagreeing with a consensus or saying things you don't like should not open them up to legal punishment.
If its really about science you should be open to hearing and possibly refuting challenges to scientific theories, not seeking to shut down conversation and scientific pursuit with state force.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be skeptical of the climate change narrative that has used massively false propaganda like the al gore movie and flawed+inaccurate computer models.
It does not make someone anti-science or a denier or mean they are up to a sinister plot to destroy the world.
There is a wide variety of leftist policies and positions pushed by prominent members of the science march.
Whether its force funding more 'science' that gets us things like shrimp treadmill studies,forcing a radical reduction in carbon emissions and replacing it with green energy alone, expanding the pervasive and extremely costly EPA instead of making cuts and limiting its reach, SJW pronoun oppression games, etc etc.
"#RESIST donald trump" is not science.
"Hey tiny hands, fund EPA study"
"[the moab] is one example of how science is weaponized against marginalized people." -march for science twitter
https://i0.wp.com/www.latinorebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Image4.pngI believe it is real to an extent. I do not believe we have to urgently completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels, as efficient and affordable energy is a key tool to better people's lives and protect them against the climate.
Some people taking steps to limit and protect people against adverse effects of an ever changing climate would be nice and is worthwhile in my opinion.
The extent of future climate change, what those actions are, how it is funded, and if people should be forced into doing them are not settled or dictated by science.
It does not follow that
catastrophic climate change theory is real, that models and talking points are necessarily accurate, etc.
Nor was my pic only about climate change.
But of course it goes right to leftist 'climate denier' talking points.
Dont like the left politicizing and butchering science? well do you believe climate change is real or are you on donald trumps side!acting like the only two options are either trump's approach to LOOSEN restrictions and regulations for the fossil fuel industry that aim to protect the environment, cut back co2 emissions, and promote a shift towards renewable energy, or to "urgently COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the use of fossil fuels", implying that ANYONE even proposed that in a manner that would threaten people's access to affordable energy.
what a completely dishonest "argument" and misrepresentation of what's actually happening. even the "greenest" approaches in europe (scandinavia, germany, netherlands) did NOT do that, but i guess you have to make up such bs scenarios to make trump's approach look somewhat justifiable...
again, the overwhelming majority of scientists ARE open to opposing ideas and findings. it's NOT about jailing dissenters for dissenting, that's just an alternative argument, a pathetic misrepresentation.
what they DO oppose are scientists DELIBERATELY MISLEADING the public with dishonest statements, often funded by interest groups that have an economic interest in misrepresenting certain issues.
a shame that in your attempt to discredit the vast majority of scientists (not their findings or their conclusions, there's your right wing hypocrisy again) that oppose your own politicised view, you can't seem to see the difference.