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: 7
107
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Here is a reality check.
These PHD people from expensive universities like Harvard or Yale are into research academically, not making the products to sell for money. A PHD Chinese lady in her forties works for my husband who has only an undergraduate degree. Why? Well he motivates them to work, stay on budget, complete the task for business profit in a timely manner. She is always wanting to do things for research. The business is in the business of making products and selling for a profit. These PHD people are kind off in la la land. Several PHD people work for him. He saved his company over a few million dollars in cut backs one year.

The government needs to get under a business control in the next four years. Spending tax payers dollars on "What if?" research is not what I want my money spent on. Have you seen our roads, economy, infrastructure and school systems quality lately? My friend's son is in the army. Twice when he jumped out of an airplane his parachute didn't open like it should. The food the army eats is low in quality and the equipment is old.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

edit on 27-1-2017 by frugal because: Reply duplicated 4 times



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

edit on 27-1-2017 by frugal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

edit on 27-1-2017 by frugal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: MisterSpock
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.



They are all smarter than you.

Every. Single. One.


What an odd response.

I'm having trouble processing it, at face value it seems very negative and confrontational on a personal level.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: blood0fheroes

originally posted by: MisterSpock
... and plenty of discussion over who will be finally named the superior captain, Kirk or Picard.

That's easy.
Hands down, Cpt. Mal is the clear winner.


Well, you're free to choose whoever you want.

I think we both know who I'd choose.




























Picard, I pick Picard. Sorry Jim, I'm just tired of always cleaning up your messes.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAhriman

That link is just plain jane fake news



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I've made no secret of the fact that our new president gives me great reason for pause and concern (usual disclaimer: I was not a supporter of and have been a critic of Obama, Clinton, et al as well - and I'd be very concerned with her in office, too,) despite my willingness to give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt (though, that benefit of the doubt has limits that while not quite reached yet, are being approached...)

Even acknowledging (and decrying, as I believe this should NEVER happen regardless of political ideology) some degree of political pressure to set an AGW narrative, as well as documented instances of certain institutions cooking the data books as it were toward that end... there is still overwhelming scientific consensus even when accounting for those facts. It isn't just a few or a handful or only the most influential and publicly visible scientific institutions that have concluded AGW is real. It's the accepted consensus. Accepted consensus can be wrong, certainly. And yes, scientists can sometimes be overzealous in defending that concensus. And no, science isn't perfect, absolute knowledge either. But scientific consensus remains our best tool despite its flaws, and we ignore it at our peril.

Our current president's - while campaigning - open contempt for scientific consensus as a "hoax" is why this march and this outpouring of concern are happening, and why people perceive these EPA (and other) moves as disturbing.

THAT SAID...

... there is also some distortion happening here on the part of the media, in a bit of a panic. There is cause for concern... but some of it at this stage is disproportionate to the reality in my opinion, at least to some degree. This is why I like CSMonitor (and no, the word Christian in its name simply dates to its founder's insistence long ago, having nothing to do with their journalism or objectivity.) They are willing to acknowledge the very real concerns, while also pointing out where things are blown up via hyperbole and overreaction.



The signs this week of an internal revolt among some federal scientists and park rangers points to the deep distrust President Trump sowed in dismissing climate change as a “hoax” and in clearly favoring a business agenda over environmental stewardship.

But it also points to how that anxiety could be distorting what appear to be typical events in a presidential transition into perceived acts of political malice.

An Environmental Protection Agency gag order that led to cries of censorship is actually par for the course, a senior EPA official told The New York Times. “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story. I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice.”

President Obama put similar policies in place when he transitioned from the Bush administration, the report notes.

Likewise, the Associated Press had to walk back a report that any studies or data from EPA scientists would be reviewed by Trump political appointees. The administration was only reviewing EPA websites – a standard practice for incoming administrations.


Source: www.csmonitor.com...

Just for some semblance of balance, this needs to be acknowledged. This is fairly standard practice. It's just that now the shoe is on the other foot, some are crying bloody murder.

They also acknowledge the cause for concern, however...



...few experts think the scientific community’s concerns are unfounded. The Trump administration’s attitude toward climate change and its willingness to embrace “alternative facts,” as adviser Kellyanne Conway described them, explains why federal scientists and park rangers are going rogue, starting unofficial Twitter accounts denouncing the administration and planning their own march on Washington.

...

...many scientists see something beyond “normal” in the moves and motives of the new administration. After all, Trump’s pick to head the EPA, former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has sued the agency numerous times regarding its pollution and greenhouse gas rules. And on Thursday, an incoming EPA official implored an audience to think of the positives of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, such as that it promotes plant growth.

The official, David Kreutzer, said he was not speaking on behalf of the agency, and the comment is true, but it betrays a wild misperception of the risks of climate change, scientists say.


(Emphasis added.)

www.csmonitor.com...

... but they continue with a bit of caution and balance as well...



But this week also suggests that that zeal can at least partly be misled by fear, at times failing to distinguish between normal partisan politics and a deeper crossing of ethical lines.

...

...presidential transitions can be chaotic, and for a variety of reasons the Trump administration has been slow in getting its appointees in place. Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, for example, hasn’t been confirmed yet, so his team isn’t in place.

“That inherently is a problem when you talk about public communications,” says Frank Maisano, head of the Washington-based Policy Resolution Group, which consults on crisis communications.

Speaking of the so-called gag order, he says, “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a blackout period until they get the professional political staff in there.”


www.csmonitor.com...

I like that they provide a diversity of opinion in their reporting, and typically stick to "Just the facts." They present both sides' positions, but don't shy away from stating categorical facts, either. I wish all news outlets did so.

They also give a bit of historical context as possible basis for the fears...



...there is a sense that the Trump administration heralds the most radical shift in how the EPA uses science since the Reagan administration. Reagan’s first EPA administrator, Anne Gorsuch Burford, drafted a “hit list” of scientific advisers at the agency and strove to gut the agency from the inside. Ms. Gorsuch Burford faced considerable backlash and ultimately resigned amid scandal.

The worry is that the scientific community could be facing similar threats today...


www.csmonitor.com...

They acknowledge that, for now, it is only a worry though, not a reality. Not yet.

That said... I share those concerns. I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt, but what he does on this issue will be part of what clinches whether I continue to (PART of.) And I know there will be those who simply do not and will not accept the AWG consensus (or that a consensus even exists, or if it does, that it is valid,) and I respect everyone's opinions... but that's where I personally stand.

Peace.


edit on 1/27/2017 by AceWombat04 because: Additional detail.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04

Thanks, Ace, for your thoughtful report.

I was mentioning to my husband that I'm going to get off my duff and subscribe us to a selection of newspapers this year. I'll add CSM to the ones I'm considering.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: MisterSpock
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.



They are all smarter than you.

Every. Single. One.


What an odd response.

I'm having trouble processing it, at face value it seems very negative and confrontational on a personal level.


My response was to your suggestion that these scientists who are marching are too intelligent to "fall for it".

My response was to get you to examine why you think they can't possibly think the way they do simply because they know the facts.

My response was to get you to hear that you are not more intelligent than virtually every scientist out there and maybe... just maybe they do what they do because they are smarter than you.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Are these deniers statements for real or alt real?

www.commondreams.org...

350.org...

peoplesclimate.org...
edit on 01CST12America/Chicago033121231 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: MisterSpock
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.



They are all smarter than you.

Every. Single. One.


What an odd response.

I'm having trouble processing it, at face value it seems very negative and confrontational on a personal level.


My response was to your suggestion that these scientists who are marching are too intelligent to "fall for it".

My response was to get you to examine why you think they can't possibly think the way they do simply because they know the facts.

My response was to get you to hear that you are not more intelligent than virtually every scientist out there and maybe... just maybe they do what they do because they are smarter than you.


Thanks for the reply.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer Blood on my slide rule from tirelessly working long hours to save the planet.



I won't be marching as the march is too ill-defined for me and traipsing through DC is rather pointless. The administration sets the scope and tone of the R&D efforts and they will do it this time, too. When CO2 control was in vogue, scientists shifted over and did CO2 research. Whatever this administration deems important will get funded and scientists will follow the money.

I do still use a slide rule [Pickett log-log] for rough calculations and for light humor, I give it to my post-docs and ask them to solve a problem with it. One guy from a name brand school actually looked up how to use it and was amazed at the simplicity. He came back and explained the operating theory to me [in case I forgot it] and went off to play with it some more.

When I went to school calculators were big and mechanical so we had to use slide rules. In the last year electronic calculators appeared but didn't do much and were expensive.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma

Is their "john", nazi collaborator george soros goose stepping with them?

It sounds more like they're just mad someone is questioning the selling of their "goods" to anyone flashing a dollar at them.

Boy, I don't want to upset them, what would I do without government streetwalkers rubber stamping big pharma vacs and telling me if I don't pay al gore taxes the world will die...




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: crankyoldman
What the hell?

This is incoherent gibberish based on nothing but your own fears.

Isn't science about data, evaluating data, and working to avoid chicken little fear mongering (exception: jobs/grants/money.)?

After a week you see the sky is falling, the world is going to hell, all scientists will be forced to work in jobs that require results that others can use all after ONE WEEK??????????????? Seriously?

Okay Mr. Science, show us the data from which your FEARS are derived?
Show us the data that proves there is ZERO waste involved in science research funded by the government.
Show us the data that shows that ZERO scientific studies paid for by the government are not used to create policies that are not designed to damage the general population.
Hell, show us any data at all, anything other then someone else's interpretation of a tweet!

I know, that the billions needed for ZIKA ZIKA ZIKA, EBOLA, EBOLA, EBOLA, BIRD FLU, BIRD FLU... oh god I'll stop, were monies BORROWED and high interest rates and well spent because... oh I have no idea why that money was pissed away as the "tests" for all three of these examples were non existent.

So please, march, panic, panic and march, spread fear and panic about the loss of your job so we may all see the light, and agree to borrow more money, see inflation go up 10 percent a year so I may know what GMO's are safe, except when the are not, but sometimes, except they aren't, but a study says the are, but it isn't a real study except that it was.


I concur. Senseless panicking and fear monger at its best. So every week now there is going to be a mass exodus of people descending on D.C. That don't agree with certain aspects of trump's policies? very soon so many groups of people will be protesting in DC (accompanied by rioters) it will just be another day in the capitol. most people will eventually just turn a blind eye to the protest. And at the end nothing gets accomplished, Besides rioters vandalizing property and clashing with police. Because every large scale protest ALWAYS attracts ararchist, rioters, and looters.

There has to be a better way to get there message across.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I've already got some signs planned:

XX = Woman
XY = Man

Climate Changes

Ike also warned about the Science/Government complex



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The arrogance of the Climate Change Church is really quite stunning. They claim a consensus when there is none (even if there was, a consensus should never be measure of accuracy in science!) and they explain away inconsistencies by claiming that we should write off inconsistencies due to lack of measurement accuracy.

For many years we have had temperature measurements going back millions of years - apparently all that data we used to have is no unreliable and we should only look at the last 150 years.


It's time to end the nonsense and get back to real science.

edit on 27/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

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


He's trying to crate 'Trump Science' ignore then deleate any scientific/peer-revied data that contradicts him, silince educated people who know what they're talking about and yuo can lie to the public about anything.

Sorry to hear about the massice cuts/abuse you guys are recieving will be at the solidarity marches in the UK.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   


"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -Isaac Asimov 1980





“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt


www.facebook.com...

edit on 01CST03America/Chicago01130331 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Ohanka

Not to get too off topic, but I've always had questions about temperature data collected.

What kind of devices were used?
Were they the same types of devices used?
If not, were the variances studied?
Were the devices calibrated?
Who did the calibration?
If so, where is the documentation?
Were temperatures taken at the same time at the same location?
Were variances in location taken into consideration?


Hundres, may even touchin thousands now, but for this post I'll use the example of tree rings (certainly not subjcet to the most extreme cases in nature - but once everhyone is familiear with.

Threering counting, f-MRI, Mass Spectrosaocy, dendocronogoy

Thousands or universites and PhDs areound the world.

Maybe, maybe not but the first process in science is to eliminate variables to create accurate result,s - which is why trree ring scientific analysis is performed.

See above, variances are accounted for and are evedent on all graphs/data tables in scientific papers.

This is how the scientific method works, picking something abd hoping it must be true/atypical is what happened before the Enlightment



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join