Scientists planning massive march in DC

Ok, folks, this is actually heating up and will be huge. After the huge turnout from the Women's march, which attracted north of 1 million marchers, scientists are now planning their own march on DC.

As a degreed engineer myself, I will definitely be in this march, come hell or high water. The new government is going overboard with their antics, funds are being slashed, important topics are being deleted from their websites. These things must not be tolerated.

Plans for the march comes after President Donald Trump’s administration deleted climate change references from the White House website (Trump has previously said global warming is a hoax.) His transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency are reportedly planning massive cuts at the agency and ending funding for scientific research. His administration also recently barred the Environmental Protection Agency from posting social media updates and speaking to the press.

“Slashing funding and restricting scientists from communicating their findings (from tax-funded research!) with the public is absurd and cannot be allowed to stand as policy,” said organizers in a post on Jan. 21. “An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.”

Scientists and activists planning march in DC

You know you done messed up when you got armies of scientists marching against you. Christ Donald, what are you doing?!

a reply to: Jaellma

I agree with this statement.

"An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.”

This is going to be great.

Personally, I'm picturing a sea of white lab coats, more pocket protectors in one square mile than china manufactures in a year and plenty of discussion over who will be finally named the superior captain, Kirk or Picard.

Can't wait to see some of the on the ground news coverage of this. On the other hand I think it will be sad seeing some of the best and brightest this country has to offer running up and down the streets repeating baseless political memes.

You'd think the vast majority of these people would be too busy to attend, too important to take the time off and too intelligent to fall for the usual brainwashed foolery common of party politics.

a reply to: Jaellma

“An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.”

I too, agree with this statement. Had enough ideological agendas for the past 8 years.

As an engineer though, I won't be marching.

I doubt that everyone would stay in step and there'd be stragglers, not everyone would be wearing the same t-shirts, and how would they define the march?

By height?
Publications?
Age?

I'd go by height because it'd look better.

I think made the move to call for media blackout on science after this picture got out:



...and I wouldn't be surprised to see them marching in the future.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Jaellma

“An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.”

I too, agree with this statement. Had enough ideological agendas for the past 8 years.

As an engineer though, I won't be marching.

I doubt that everyone would stay in step and there'd be stragglers, not everyone would be wearing the same t-shirts, and how would they define the march?

By height?
Publications?
Age?

I'd go by height because it'd look better.

The smaller groups can just follow the EPA group.

Oh wow, scientists are going to go protest because the biggest spender on research is going to decide if some of the research money is being wasted. Oh my, just because there are many different research grants given for the same thing all the time and nobody is looking much at any of this research, the government decided to evaluate where the waste is. These grants are big and when you start looking at the research, you will find there are doing research on something they just did research on. There needs to be better oversight on these expenditures and there needs to be people evaluating this research. It seems all that work is being wasted, not many people look at it and try to combine the researches to evaluate what they mean.

I know this because I read research every day. I like it, but have noticed way too much repetition in the research. Yes, it is good to verify the research is right, but not twenty times. Sure scientists are not going to be happy, their way of life could be in jeopardy, they might have to go work in one of the new factories or at Wallymart greeting people.

Yes we need research, but we need oversight and we need broad form evaluation of the research to see alternative ways it can be applied.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Jaellma

“An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.”

I too, agree with this statement. Had enough ideological agendas for the past 8 years.

As an engineer though, I won't be marching.

I doubt that everyone would stay in step and there'd be stragglers, not everyone would be wearing the same t-shirts, and how would they define the march?

By height?
Publications?
Age?

I'd go by height because it'd look better.

LOL...there wouldn't be definitions, only derivations and extrapolations.

Which set of marchers marched better? The scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers or mathematicians?

Which law best describes this?

a reply to: Jaellma
I say this all with love

Do you know how awesome a nerd march will be?

I'd try to show up with this one.

My 3 important issues.

1. Equal Rights/Equal Treatment.

2. Separation of church and state.

3. Science advancement.

a reply to: Jaellma

Good. Also happy to see the rebellious brainiacs tweeting in defiance.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Jaellma
I say this all with love

Do you know how awesome a nerd march will be?

Next thing you see in the march would be a float parade sponsored by big pharma throwing sample prescriptions at crowds...oh, those special interest groups are something eh? Trying to take back their freedom?

Ain't happenin.

a reply to: rickymouse
I agree. Researching research that has been done a thousand times. It´s arguable if the planet is warming that much, but this thing: We know it. Time to actually change something. It´s not like we´re not knowing what to do.

a reply to: MisterSpock

You would think that intelligent people dont drink the kool-aid but you would be wrong .That has always puzzled me ,

Any complaints from the LGBTQ community that they will not be adequately represented at the scientists march?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Oh wow, scientists are going to go protest because the biggest spender on research is going to decide if some of the research money is being wasted. Oh my, just because there are many different research grants given for the same thing all the time and nobody is looking much at any of this research, the government decided to evaluate where the waste is. These grants are big and when you start looking at the research, you will find there are doing research on something they just did research on. There needs to be better oversight on these expenditures and there needs to be people evaluating this research. It seems all that work is being wasted, not many people look at it and try to combine the researches to evaluate what they mean.

I know this because I read research every day. I like it, but have noticed way too much repetition in the research. Yes, it is good to verify the research is right, but not twenty times. Sure scientists are not going to be happy, their way of life could be in jeopardy, they might have to go work in one of the new factories or at Wallymart greeting people.

Yes we need research, but we need oversight and we need broad form evaluation of the research to see alternative ways it can be applied.

Soooooo, what's next? Cutting grants on education, small business, transportation, etc just because there may be lack of oversight? Give me a break. So the government gets to be judge, jury and executioner in all matters concerning oversight on funding because of their ideologies?

What needs to happen is clear dialog on what stays and what goes. Cutting without deliberations is not smart and undermines years of hard work and also jeopardizes potential breakthrough is studies. Their actions so far don't appear to be logical or based on any given study we have seen.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: rickymouse
I agree. Researching research that has been done a thousand times. It´s arguable if the planet is warming that much, but this thing: We know it. Time to actually change something. It´s not like we´re not knowing what to do.

That research needs proper interpretation, not cherry picked to show what someone wants it to show. I look at the research on both sides of an issue and related research when I evaluate something. If I have problems in finding how to connect the dots, I look at chat rooms where people discuss their problems and it gives me ideas to look at other research to find a link to bind the conflicting research together into a useful knowledge. It takes lots of time but I get a better understanding of things. Science interpretation is too polarized too, the interpreters say our research is correct, yours isn't. Double blind checking using the exact perameters does not work half the time, it only works on a limited basis, often it makes the research useless because it can not apply to reality because those limiting parameters do not exist in the real world setting.

"Climate Scientists" or Scientists? Big difference between the two.