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.

 

Scientists planning massive march in DC

page: 13
107
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa




See they changed the name from Global warming to climate change.

False.

The fact is; global warming is not the same thing as climate change. Thing is, global warming causes climate changes.


When do we get to call it Global Greening?




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Seems like you can right now.

Yeah! *firework emojie thingy*



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: woopy
a reply to: rickymouse

The protest isn't about funding, it's about the gagging and censoring them.

And I applaud the resistance against it. Very happy that scientists will be marching and opening unoffocial accounts where they can't be ordered around what to make public and what not.


do you mean the new rules for the EPA? it doesnt gag a thing regarding the actual data. all it does is make them get permission from the secretary of the AG dept to make a post on twitter about policy change. it doesnt stop them from tweeting their peer reviewed data or anything else relevant to their dept.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma

Won't all that concentrated body heat, heaving and sweating lofting banners cause more environmental problems?

I mean..burning vehicles and property might be a fun afternoon for some, but environmentally...not great.

And all those innocent trees, murdered just to write inane slogans of upset...that's going to take it's toll too.

You'll be there, 'Come hell or high water'?

That's a strange combo...you'll be crispy and soggy all at once.

Good luck to you...i'd pack a respirator if i were you.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

It's the danger that is lurking that scientist only may publish their research when it's approved by government. The danger lies within the possibility they may only publish the research that is in favour of government politics and not allowed to publish research that is not in line with the government..



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: bastion


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.

Says you.
What are your qualifications that allow you to make this statement?


First with distintion and merit in applied mathematics, helped work on SPICA telescope with Ricahrd J Tuffs and Virgina Perpescu, analysed data from the SDO (collaboration with Harvard and Stanford). Presented a talk at the International Physics Symposium in 2012.

Even with these qualifications I'm still nowhere near qualified enough to analyse papers to the required accuracy - as years of working/studying sciences have taught me the difference between truely knowing something and thinking you know something.
edit on 29-1-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: woopy
a reply to: rickymouse

The protest isn't about funding, it's about the gagging and censoring them.

And I applaud the resistance against it. Very happy that scientists will be marching and opening unoffocial accounts where they can't be ordered around what to make public and what not.


do you mean the new rules for the EPA? it doesnt gag a thing regarding the actual data. all it does is make them get permission from the secretary of the AG dept to make a post on twitter about policy change. it doesnt stop them from tweeting their peer reviewed data or anything else relevant to their dept.


Correct. Many do not consider that Administrations set policy and the rank and file don't. All the spin is from the top all the data and science is from the lower levels. It doesn't matter if an employee truly believes that evil CO2 is the culprit or solar cycles are the culprit. The scientist does not get to politicize; that is for the politicians.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Humans are a queer and odd group of animals. They have faith, belief and other non-scientific thoughts. To accommodate them, you have to consider not only the reality, but also the "spirituality" which is what makes them different.

Science may be the reality, but wants are of the spirit.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa




See they changed the name from Global warming to climate change.

False.

The fact is; global warming is not the same thing as climate change. Thing is, global warming causes climate changes.


So why is the inverse not true then? Point is they made it easier to mis understand by the general population of morons,idiots,sheep,and greenies.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: bastion


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.

Says you.
What are your qualifications that allow you to make this statement?


First with distintion and merit in applied mathematics, helped work on SPICA telescope with Ricahrd J Tuffs and Virgina Perpescu, analysed data from the SDO (collaboration with Harvard and Stanford). Presented a talk at the International Physics Symposium in 2012.

Even with these qualifications I'm still nowhere near qualified enough to analyse papers to the required accuracy - as years of working/studying sciences have taught me the difference between truely knowing something and thinking you know something.


So leave any conversation related to science to the intellectual elite who have managed to gain accreditation, everybody else should shut up and follow the agenda they develop?

With an attitude like that, you could also disqualify yourself from posting on forums until you learn to spell.



Truly is the only acceptable way to spell the adverbial form of the adjective true.
Truely is not an alternative spelling; it’s a common mistake.



Academic superiority is over rated. There are plenty of people who have came from a technical background that are able to look at a paper and get a good idea if it's junk or not without holding multiple PhD's.

Going to school doesn't make you smart.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




So why is the inverse not true then?

Because global temperature ranges determine a large part of climate. The vice is not versa.

An increase in global temperatures is resulting in changes in climates.
edit on 1/29/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


Perhaps, if this theory have merit, perhaps "fossil fuel" is being processed/produced in the same manner.


Our planet may be blue from the inside out. Earth’s huge store of water might have originated via chemical reactions in the mantle, rather than arriving from space through collisions with ice-rich comets. This new water may be under such pressure that it can trigger earthquakes hundreds of kilometres below Earth’s surface – tremors whose origins have so far remained unexplained. That’s the upshot of a computer simulation of reactions in Earth’s upper mantle between liquid hydrogen and quartz, the most common and stable form of silica in this part of the planet. “This is one way water can form on Earth,” says team member John Tse at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “We show it’s possible to have water forming in Earth’s natural environment, rather than being of extraterrestrial origin.” The simple reaction takes place at about 1400 °C and pressures 20,000 times higher than atmospheric pressure as silica, or silicon dioxide, reacts with liquid hydrogen to form liquid water and silicon hydride.


www.newscientist.com...
edit on 29-1-2017 by edmc^2 because: reply to post



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Awwww the poor babies upset they not get anymore free money to make up fairytales .


darnit, you just stole my post! I notice a trend here. Anyone getting anything for 'free" or put another way, anyone who is on the dole and being paid by the govt. (ie. tax payer, the working people) without having to actually answer to anyone is planning to march against this President.

Can't take away anyone''s free stuff..

I get it. It's pretty obvious.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
People need to let the dust settle before jumping to conclusions,to much acting before thinking



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Here's the latest on the drive to get Scientists to join the march/protest.

Sign Up Here: bigthink.com...

Unlike your habitual, career protestors, scientists will be surprised and dejected when they figure out that their protest was a waste of time, energy, money.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Perhaps, if this theory have merit, perhaps "fossil fuel" is being processed/produced in the same manner.


Abiotic oil has it's proponents.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Humans are a queer To accommodate them, you have to consider not only the reality, but also the "spirituality" which is what makes them different.

Science may be the reality, but wants are of the spirit.


Science can't measure the most powerful human driver then, can it. So when is this march? (I don't mean the month)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

April 22nd is the day, i believe that is also EarthDay.
Be interesting to see where the funding is flowing from.
Not really sure what they are protesting.
Doubt they know either.
Maybe slash their wages before then to give them something to biatch about.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Be interesting to see where the funding is flowing from.




Not really sure what they are protesting. Doubt they know either.


No hard to find out. There's this new intertubes thingy.

www.marchforscience.com...

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Be interesting to see where the funding is flowing from.




Not really sure what they are protesting. Doubt they know either.


No hard to find out. There's this new intertubes thingy.

www.marchforscience.com...


Webpage doesn't tell me much of anything, I looked at it yesterday.
Says they are worried, I see a donate button.
Who have they hired to mount their campaign?
Someone should dig up who owns the URL, maybe it would provide a clue as to what group is behind this.


Recent policy changes have caused heightened worry among scientists, and the incredible and immediate outpouring of support has made clear that these concerns are also shared by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue, which has given policymakers permission to reject overwhelming evidence, is a critical and urgent matter. It is time for people who support scientific research and evidence-based policies to take a public stand and be counted.



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join