The March for Science Because There is No Planet B

Tens of Thousands of Scientists are mad at Trump's policies which so far have been very anti science. From his denial of Climate Change to the gutting of science agencies including the EPA and NASA's climate change budget, Trump has ruffled the feathers of Scientists nationwide. Now, as with the Woman's March back in January, there will be a massive march on Washington by scientists who wish to speak up against Trump and his policies.

Trump's proposed budget — which slashes funding for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and research arms of the Department of Energy and NASA — outraged and worried researchers. They say decreased funding for science is nothing new, but the dramatic proposals of the current administration go far beyond the slow but steady decline of the past decades. Related: Trump Cuts to Medical Research Will have Devastating Effects "Federal support has been dropping since the 1960s," said Lydia Villa-Komaroff, former CEO of a cell biology company called Cytonome and a co-chair of the march. "This did not begin in November," said Rush Holt, a physicist and former member of Congress who now heads the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

March for Science
Part of Protests against Donald Trump
Date April 22, 2017
Location Washington, D.C. and over 600 satellite rallies in other cities
Causes Donald Trump administration's views on climate change and science
Methods Protest march
Lead figures
Caroline Weinberg
Valorie Aquino
Jonathan Berman[1]
Honorary co-chairs
Bill Nye
Mona Hanna-Attisha
Lydia Villa-Komaroff[2]

The March is tomorrow....Scientists are speaking out on Trump's efforts to reign in what he sees as wasteful spending. Of course, some scientists don't see it that way and neither do I. Whether Climate Change is man made or not, it's still happening in my opinion. That's how I see it. How does ATS see it?

www.nbcnews.com...

Well, climate change is real and it is partially because of man's exploitations. The thing is, throwing money at scientific research which isn't doing a damn thing to fix the problem is wasting money. We need to start making things to last longer and we need to quit desroying the things that actually tie the carbon back up.

If you took all the money that is spent on science for climate change research and directed it into windmills and solar panels, we would be better off. Developing new more efficient solar technology does not need federal funding. Private companies can do that. Take part of that money and investigate the forty thousand approved chemicals that the FDA approved in food and food processing without personally testing anything about them..

If Global Warming is real, we will adapt, we did in the past when it was even warmer than today, and when it was colder than today. If it is man made, too bad, we're not going back to the pre-industrial era - trying to force that onto civilization will cause far more harm to the populace than a very slight rise in temperature. We need to continue on our path, adapt to any changes that come our way, while trying to find better forms of energy.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
If Global Warming is real, we will adapt, we did in the past when it was even warmer than today, and when it was colder than today. If it is man made, too bad, we're not going back to the pre-industrial era - trying to force that onto civilization will cause far more harm to the populace than a very slight rise in temperature. We need to continue on our path, adapt to any changes that come our way, while trying to find better forms of energy.

Well, there will be a major die-off due to Global Warming. There will be less food and the food that does grow will be less nutritious. My opinion....

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
If Global Warming is real, we will adapt, we did in the past when it was even warmer than today, and when it was colder than today. If it is man made, too bad, we're not going back to the pre-industrial era - trying to force that onto civilization will cause far more harm to the populace than a very slight rise in temperature. We need to continue on our path, adapt to any changes that come our way, while trying to find better forms of energy.

I have always figured when it gets bad people will be motivated enough. Lets face it we could solve this today if we wanted we know how to remove co2 from the air. We already do it for coal plants. However research isnt doing anything no problem gets fixed with decades of research. We are not learning anything new we know the effects of CO2 and lets take that money and build some scrubbers. Because removing it from the air is the only way we will never get countries like China to cut back. And honestly i dont think we have the right to the west polluted to get were we are telling 3rd world countries they cant do what we did is WRONG.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, climate change is real and it is partially because of man's exploitations. The thing is, throwing money at scientific research which isn't doing a damn thing to fix the problem is wasting money. We need to start making things to last longer and we need to quit desroying the things that actually tie the carbon back up.

If you took all the money that is spent on science for climate change research and directed it into windmills and solar panels, we would be better off. Developing new more efficient solar technology does not need federal funding. Private companies can do that. Take part of that money and investigate the forty thousand approved chemicals that the FDA approved in food and food processing without personally testing anything about them..

You make some good points, Ricky. However, I don't see why the answer should always be to cut science funding as if science is a bad thing. You seem to be very science-minded based on what you've said in other posts. I feel that If money is taken away from Scientists it will not be spent on other noble efforts aimed at curbing Global Warming; the money will end up in some rich guys pocket or investment account.

Anti science? More like Anti global warming.
Some of these agencies are bloated beyond belief. And when you are 20 trillion dollars in the red harsh cuts have to made. I say cut off food stamps and welfare!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson made this vid a couple of days ago and I think it is relevant to the March for Science.


Additional link for vid and article

a reply to: muSSang

Yeah, f*ck the actual people and what little aide they get, cut science, but increase the military some more!!!

What's the point??? You have no soul or compassion for your fellow man.

It says you're in Australia anyway. What do you care what cuts or debt America has???

What the hell is NASA doing in the great global warming swindle?? They should keep their focus on space! As far as co2 and great die offs do to crop failure. I thought 2* warming and high co2 was supposed to be helpful for crop development. I guess fact will always prove whatever the agenda is, pro or anti. Humans, they make me sick!!

a reply to: lostbook

The money is either going to a rich guys pocket or to build more weapons to kill poor helpless people around the world and when they're gone they'll be used to kill poor helpless people here.

Proof is provided by simply looking at Human History since forever up until now.

There is a pretty clear pattern to our behavior.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, climate change is real and it is partially because of man's exploitations. The thing is, throwing money at scientific research which isn't doing a damn thing to fix the problem is wasting money. We need to start making things to last longer and we need to quit desroying the things that actually tie the carbon back up.

If you took all the money that is spent on science for climate change research and directed it into windmills and solar panels, we would be better off. Developing new more efficient solar technology does not need federal funding. Private companies can do that. Take part of that money and investigate the forty thousand approved chemicals that the FDA approved in food and food processing without personally testing anything about them..

You make some good points, Ricky. However, I don't see why the answer should always be to cut science funding as if science is a bad thing. You seem to be very science-minded based on what you've said in other posts. I feel that If money is taken away from Scientists it will not be spent on other noble efforts aimed at curbing Global Warming; the money will end up in some rich guys pocket or investment account.

There has to be reasonable accountability for the direction of science. You can spend a billion dollars on testing things to verify global warming or in fact any scientific venture and not accomplish one thing to fix the problem that the money for the research addresses. That is what is happening in the global warming issues and things like the Asian carp issue. Scientists can burn through money as fast as doctors that prescribe many unneeded tests and never heal the people because it would lessen the amount of money they receive. That same issue happens often in global warming research.

Millions of dollars have been spent researching the Asian carp in the Mississippi river and they have not done anything. That is an example that seems unrelated, but have government funded scientists actually done anything to reduce global working. It isn't Science I am complaining about, it is the lack of actually fixing the problem that I see as the issue. Billions of dollars were spent on verifying that climate change is happening, they keep increasing spending to show it is real. It is real and we are doing it, now shuffle the money into fixing the problem instead.

a reply to: lostbook

He's borderline anti-vaccine and believes scientists are deliberately inflicting Autism on Americans. He famously said climate change is a 'Chinese hoax' to 'make US manufacturing non-competitive.' He tweeted about 'record low temperatures' and how we're really 'freezing' not warming. 'Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.' Eco-friendly lightbulbs 'cause cancer.'

The march will make a point to some of the wider public and the media will bring some coverage too. I can't see it making any difference to the Trump administration because they don't trust science so why would they believe scientists? I get the impression they think science is just an opinion.

It'll be portrayed as anti-Trump on Fox and inevitably hijacked by political hacks and actual anti-Trump protesters. US politics huh? It's a poo-flinging mess.

One of my biggest issues with Trump is his anti-science stance (and to that effect, my biggest issue with the american right wing).
I am just a bit saddened with the endless protests by random butthurt groups, this will get lost in the noise. This right here is a votebreaker, but you got antifa and the progressives just making most/all marches lost in the noise. If I was of a conspiracy mindset, I would say it was intentional

a reply to: Kandinsky

I can't see it making any difference to the Trump administration because they don't trust science so why would they believe scientists?

Now why would you say that?

Simply because he is critical of anthropomorphic climate change, that does not mean he and his administration do not 'trust' science.

If we try to control our planet's ecosystem we will just phuk it up. We mess EVERYTHING up.

Let's just live and let it balance itself.

originally posted by: Tempter
If we try to control our planet's ecosystem we will just phuk it up. We mess EVERYTHING up.

Let's just live and let it balance itself.

The issue is the debate that we have been (untentionally) controlling the ecosystem with industrialization and we phukt it up..you are saying lets continue on, the counter is that we should try to fix what we broke.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Trump's self-published views demonstrate a distrust of science.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Can you elaborate? What constitutes distrust of science?

I could understand if you were to make the argument that he doesn't understand science, because that's probably true.

But to say he distrusts it all together? What do you base that on?

I'm only curious.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I've already made the points. He thinks Autism is deliberately being inflicted on the population. It implies he distrusts their intelligence, education, ethics and, by extension, elevates his own understanding to a status above theirs.