It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jaellma
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
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Jaellma
Are Bill Nye and NIel DeGrasse going to this shindig?
Neil: why dont you pick on a mind your own size... own size..
We got a bad azz over here plus i got your back Nye..
Astrophisics black guy... hayden planetary fly...
by the way the answer to your little question is "I" as in I put the swag back in science while isacc newton was lying and sticking daggers in liebenz. and hiding was up inside his attic on some harry potter business..
the universe is infinite but this battle is finished.
All their data should be checked by independent sources .... including me and you however we know that the EPA, NOAA and NASA all hide much of their data adjusted sources
originally posted by: fnpmitchreturns
All their data should be checked by independent sources .... including me and you however we know that the EPA, NOAA and NASA all hide much of their data adjusted sources
I guess some science is more "scientific" than others .....
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
North of a million free abortion marchers in DC?
Hahahaha
I thought scientists valued facts and evidence.
originally posted by: Justoneman
The truth as Phage might agree is often somewhere in the middle of these two sides .
Scientists from all relevant fields - climate science, geophysics, meteorology, biophysics - are overwhelming is agreement - not out of a conspiracy - but fact. Only people who conspire and paranoid (mentally ill) people think climate change is fake - and it makes sense they would think that: they think other people operate just as they do.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Teikiatsu
I doubt your credentials as a scientist.
While I am not a scientist myself, I have cause to employ them. What field of research are you in? Hypotheticaly..
Doubt what you want. My degrees in Biology and Microbiology combined with 15 years in vaccine production and bioinformatics are what matters.
In the end, this is the internet and all we are is what we write for others to see. You aren't the first to think you have some means to judge my credentials, you certainly won't be the last.
Are you a mfg or process engineer for a pharmaceutical co? Or do you have PhD plus Post-Doc research. Do you spend time in the lab or time in production? Or bridging between the two, scaling vaccine production? I assume your BS was in Biology and MS in Micro-Biology.
Curious as to how you define scientist when you declare yourself one. I define Scientist as basically non-iterative, novel research. They don't optimize, they seek to answer questions that haven't been sufficiently answered before.
Unless you hold multiple PHds in the Sciences and can so partial differentiation in your sleep, you're in no way qualified to review a paper or understand what it even means, which is the case for 99.9% of the population. This why papers are peer-reviewedby experts on the subjects.
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.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: fnpmitchreturns
All their data should be checked by independent sources .... including me and you however we know that the EPA, NOAA and NASA all hide much of their data adjusted sources
What on earth are you on?
Neither you nor I are ABLE to confirm or deny the research of EXPERTS i.e. we do not have the requisite KNOWLEDGE to even comment on their work.
Do you even understand the insanity of what you just said? Do you know how knowledge acquisition and the transformation of mind that accompanies it, works? Expertise excludes - as philosophers since Plato have long understood.
You should not - and if I were president, I would make it ILLEGAL, to make false claims - and spreading noxious propaganda - like the one you just made that imperiously and arrogantly imagines that either you or I can understand the nitty-gritty of climate sciences.
Scientists from all relevant fields - climate science, geophysics, meteorology, biophysics - are overwhelming is agreement - not out of a conspiracy - but fact. Only people who conspire and paranoid (mentally ill) people think climate change is fake - and it makes sense they would think that: they think other people operate just as they do.
Fortunately, a thing called reason exists, allowing sane people to understand the logic underlying climate science, and also allowing people who are unreasonably paranoid to recognize their paranoia - and so realize that they are projecting their own anxieties upon this issue.