March For (Fake) Science Demonstrators Say They’re The Real Patriots Or Something

And it was totally not political!

(NBC News) It’s not often that bugs get whoops and cheers.

Lovers of science got their day in the rain Saturday as they rallied around their passions, delivering applause for the technology that brought their smart phones to the obvious theme of climate change on Earth Day.

Scientists didn’t create smartphones: engineers did. Furthermore, Warmists tell us that all the mining and use of electricity for smartphones is Bad for ‘climate change’ and the overall environment (which are two separate issues).

And while the March for Science was on the surface nonpartisan, politics bubbled up again and again.

(Rest in the individual post. Click the more tag)

Zoom in on those buttons. I have lots and lots of photos in my timeline highlighting the whole “totally not political” thing.

Some March for Science speakers invoked patriotism and love of country as their motivation. “I am a patriot. I fight for spacious skies. I fight for amber waves of grain,” said photographer James Balog, founder of the Extreme Ice Survey and Earth Vision Institute.

But, is he really a patriot when he, and so many, took fossil fueled flights and car trips?

“We are in a system where science is thought of as a joke or a belief,” said Cody Eckert, a consultant from Arlington, Virginia who led chants as the cheering crowd marched along Constitution Avenue between the White House and the Washington Monument.

“But science is facts and it’s reality. To deny reality and deny facts is absurdity and I refuse to live in a system that’s absurd,” Eckert told NBC News.

Maybe you should rethink your mascots. First, Bill Nye the Science Guy, prominently featured at the D.C. march, is actually not a scientist. And then

Neither Beaker, who showed up all over the place, nor Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, are, surprisingly, actual scientists. Nor real. Perfect for representing ‘climate science.’

And there were lots of “pussy hats” being worn by women and men. Just for clarity, what some were thinking were pussy hats were actually pink brain hats. There were plenty of tweets about how awesome science is from people with degrees in things that end in Studies. And lots of signs about Other People having their tax money being used to fund science….like shrimp on treadmills and failed climate models…but, funny how these same people aren’t offering to fund it themselves.

Really, this was all just one big anti-Trump hissy fit, like all the others. But, science!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

64 Responses to “March For (Fake) Science Demonstrators Say They’re The Real Patriots Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    TEACH:

    So you believe all scientists are unpatriotic for protesting trump’s anti-science stance, or is your mockery and ridicule reserved for climate scientists?

    You’ve recently changed your position on whether the Earth is warming, now admitting that the Earth is warming. What convinced you that the Earth is warming?

    Obviously the protests were not just about climate science but also about proposed cuts to NIH, CDC, EPA, NSF, NASA and other government funders and supporters of research and development.

    And absolutely understand that much of the protest concerned the anti-science tone of the new administration. One cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence of CO2-dependent global warming, calling the concept a Chinese hoax, denigrating climate scientists as criminals and be taken seriously on all other scientific issues.

    The unscientific, totally political stance of conservatives toward global warming reflects poorly on their reasoning abilities toward all of science.

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff,
      Teach has consistently said that we have some sort of climate change going on. My impression is that he does not feel the change is secondary to CO2, which most intelligent people not on government grants feels is appropriate. You, on the other hand, take lose correlations of temp and CO2 concentration and make wild pronouncements as to causation, which is not the “science” that you go on about. In the years you have commented here, you have not provided a single citation about causation that does not involve a real scientific analysis. This is why people don’t engage you in discussion. As to the list of so called scientific agencies in the government being reduced in money, GOOD. They all have demonstrated a tendency to irrelevance, corruption, extension of mission (NASA and the Muslims under Obama), and over all have shown that they are no longer needed. Good example for the CDC is the recent ZETA scare, total bullshit which was manufactured to get the public scared over nothing to generate funding. If you look at the stats, which you want, that is the real stats, you will find corruption of the facts. Now, all the scientist, just tell them you are eliminating their grants unless they bow to you and all these guys will be on their knees. The reason that you are running scared is that your corporation will go bust without the NIH.

    • So you believe all scientists are unpatriotic for protesting trump’s anti-science stance, or is your mockery and ridicule reserved for climate scientists?

      Point out where I stated that any of them were unpatriotic. You’re reading in something I neither wrote nor even implied.

      You’ve recently changed your position on whether the Earth is warming, now admitting that the Earth is warming. What convinced you that the Earth is warming?

      I’ve had the same position since college in the late 80’s, namely that the Earth is in a warm period. I’ve never said we aren’t in a warm period. The only part of my position that has changed is in causation. If you’re referring to my highlighting of the great pause, that doesn’t negate the fact that there have been spikes in warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. And it may very well start another warm spike again. Or, it may cool. We’ll see.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    “It (the global warming scam) is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
    –Hal Lewis (October 2012 resignation from the American Physical Society)

    It is a pseudoscientific fraud because there was no data as the basis for any of their work. The scientists determined to achieve the objective of the IPCC, that is prove ‘scientifically’ that human CO2 was causing global warming, had to modify or eliminate the inadequate real data and create false data.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/29/ipcc-objectives-and-methods-mandated-elimination-reduction-manipulation-of-inadequate-real-data-and-creation-of-false-data/

    Marching and protesting will not change those facts.

  3. Zachriel says:

    david7134: lose correlations of temp and CO2 concentration and make wild pronouncements as to causation

    Actually, the mechanism of causation was determined from fundamental physics long before the correlation was shown. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

  4. david7134 says:

    I have seen that article and then follow up articles that have refuted the concept of climate change. Come up with better and don’t reference the internet and Wikipedia.

    • Zachriel says:

      david7134: I have seen that article and then follow up articles that have refuted the concept of climate change.

      Baby steps. You falsely claimed that loose correlations were used to make claims concerning causation, when the causation concerning CO2 and the greenhouse effect was determined long before anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere were relevant.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    The best explanation to the warmists and their pseudoscience of AGW.

    willhaas April 23, 2017 at 10:19 pm

    The reality is that… the AGW conjecture depends upon a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by a few trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that have LWIR absorption bands.

    What the AGW conjecture ignores is that good absorbers are also good radiators so that the so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy. Heat energy transfer in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection, and latent heat phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation.

    The radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture depends upon has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

  6. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: What the AGW conjecture ignores is that good absorbers are also good radiators

    Approximately half the heat absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated downward, meaning that heat accumulates at the surface. In addition, that CO2 also radiates is why the upper atmosphere is cooler than it would be otherwise, as CO2 in the upper atmosphere re-radiates directly to the cold of space.

    drowningpuppies: so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy.

    That’s obviously not the case. A simple calculation of Earth’s graybody temperature shows that the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Heat energy transfer in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection, and latent heat phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation.

  7. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: energy transfer in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection, and latent heat phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation.

    While there are many mechanisms that move energy around the climate system, the only way the Earth can gain or lose significant energy is radiatively. There is a radiative heat source of the sun, the cold sink of space, and a relatively fast rotation. That means we can determine the Earth’s graybody temperature, which is about -18°C. However, the Earth’s surface is much warmer than that due to the greenhouse effect, while the stratosphere is much cooler. The surface would be even warmer without atmospheric mixing.

    You had indicated that “greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy”. Heat transfer to space is slowed by greenhouse gases.

  8. Jeffery says:

    EVERY one of the responses contradicted and largely refuted what was typed.

    Saying there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect is like calling the Earth flat or that gravity is an illusion.

    It’s a denial of basic physics.

    We assume the argument is being made by a commenter at WUWT.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Little guy also lacks comprehensive reading skills.
      The comment addressed AGW conjecture based on a radiant greenhouse effect.
      Go back and read it, dumbass.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Please explain “radiant greenhouse effect”, LOL.

    Try using your own words, LOL.

    LOL.

  10. Dana says:

    Real science? Guffaws! Real science would tell the left that if someone is born with a penis and testicles, he is a male, period, regardless of what he wishes or claims or believes. If the left truly supported real science, they wouldn’t support transsexualism.

    For the left, the only ‘real science’ is what they choose to believe, for whatever political reasons they have.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    Actually, science is based on finding answers and truths. To assert as canonical that the presence or absence of a penis at birth is the ONLY consideration is not scientific.

    In addition you ignore that many children are born with ambiguous genitalia and are often assigned a sex a birth by a physician.

    Anyway, why do you care?

  12. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: None of your responses has contradicted what was written.

    Your claim was that “greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy”. That was false. You have continually ignored the fact that the Earth’s surface is warmer than its graybody temperature, and that this is not due to tropospheric mixing, which actually helps reduce the effect of greenhouse warming on the surface.

  13. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Try looking it up

    Sure. “Radiant greenhouse effect”

    The first link is to a blog comment by willhaas. The next link is also to a blog comment by willhaas. Another notable link is to Happy Almost Friday. If we narrow our search, there are no references to any .gov or .edu site. The term seems to be an invention of willhaas, which you cited above. That earns Will Haas worth 10 points, by the way.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Sorry, couldn’t find any meaningless graphs with lots of colored lines for you.
      Are y’all being obtuse, again?

      Heat energy transfer in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection, and latent heat phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation.

  14. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies:

    Heat energy transfer in the troposphere is primarily by conduction, convection, and latent heat phase change and not by LWIR absorption band radiation.

    Atmospheric mixing doesn’t warm the surface, but cools it; hence cannot explain why the surface is warmer than expected of a graybody.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Atmospheric mixing doesn’t warm the surface…

      Never claimed it did.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Not convinced that “willhaas” qualifies as an expert or authority.

  16. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Never claimed it did.

    What you claims, falsely, was that “greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy”. Nor have to attempted to defend your claim. You made a tangential statement concerning tropospheric mixing, but never explained how this salvages your claim.

    • Zachriel says:

      What you claimed, falsely, was that “greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy”. Nor have you attempted to defend your claim. You made a tangential statement concerning tropospheric mixing, but never explained how this salvages your claim.

  17. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Y’all want to repeat that after y’all re-read the entire original comment.

    You don’t seem to be willing or able to discuss the topic. You had argued that “greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy”, which is false. You introduced a made-up term “radiant greenhouse effect” without providing a definition. You brought up tropospheric mixing, which we addressed, saying “Atmospheric mixing doesn’t warm the surface, but cools it; hence cannot explain why the surface is warmer than expected of a graybody.” You have yet to respond substantively.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The comment regarded the fallacy of AGW conjecture.or in other words man made global warming.

  18. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: The comment regarded the fallacy of AGW conjecture.or in other words man made global warming.

    The issue we took issue with was “What the AGW conjecture ignores is that good absorbers are also good radiators so that the so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy.” Suggesting that greenhouse gases absorb energy without also emitting energy is nonsensical. The re-radiation of greenhouse gases are intrinsic to the greenhouse effect whereby heat is trapped near the Earth’s surface. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      So it’s not “trapped” then.
      Arrhenius used trapped air in a bottle.

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: Arrhenius used trapped air in a bottle.

        You apparently didn’t read the paper. Arrhenius performed a complex calculation to determine the amount of warming expected from CO2 and water vapor.

        You really need to start with the basic facts:

        • CO2 and water vapor absorb and emit infrared radiation.
        • The greenhouse effect is due to the absorption and emission of infrared radiation.
        • Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s oceans would be frozen.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists, including Josef Stefan, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Samuel Langley, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Knut Angstrom, Alexander Buchan, Luigi De Marchi, Joseph Fourier, C.S.M. Pouillet, and John Tyndall.
          His work (mostly interpretation of other’s work) did not include consideration of other inputs into the climate energy budget, but rather examined CO2 concentrations in isolation.

  19. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists

    All scientists rely upon the findings of other scientists, nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes. In this case, Arrhenius’s calculations depend on the finding that CO2 and water vapor absorb and emit infrared radiation, as well as the fundamentals so physics, such as energy conservation. Do you disagree with either of these premises which form the basis of his calculations?

  20. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: His work (mostly interpretation of other’s work) did not include consideration of other inputs into the climate energy budget, but rather examined CO2 concentrations in isolation.

    On a planetary basis, what is there besides the energy of the sun and the cold-sink of space?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Are there not other inputs into the climate energy budget that need to be considered?

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: Are there not other inputs into the climate energy budget that need to be considered?

        In determining the existence of a greenhouse effect, the only other factor is albedo. The Earth’s albedo is about 0.3. Based on that, fundamental physics indicates that the Earth should be largely frozen. However, because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface is rather balmy.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          So ignore gravity and atmospheric pressure amongst other things?

          • Zachriel says:

            Gravity and atmospheric pressure do not affect the equilibrium state. Gravity is weak enough and has been constant for long enough for the Earth’s surface to reach equilibrium. It’s the energy from the sun, and how that energy is re-radiated that determined the Earth’s surface temperature.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Ignore the energy storage capacity and variable energy release of the oceans?

            Ignore that 71% of the Earth’s surface is water?

  21. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Ignore the energy storage capacity and variable energy release of the oceans?

    The Earth can only gain and lose heat radiatively. Movement of heat within the climate system doesn’t directly affect the overall heat equation.

    Are you seriously arguing there is no greenhouse effect? It’s fairly straightforward to calculate the graybody temperature of the Earth.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      So you have no answers for the questions put forth?

    • Zachriel says:

      Try this: Given the basics of radiative warming, the Earth’s surface should be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. Can you explain where this temperature differential comes from?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        The Earth can only gain and lose heat radiatively.
        Well, almost.
        Y’all are dodging again.
        We were discussing the manmade global warming (AGW) conjecture or hypothesis.
        Do y’all agree that the Arrhenius calculations y’all referred to are correct?

  22. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: We were discussing the manmade global warming (AGW) conjecture or hypothesis.

    No. We took issue with your claim that “What the AGW conjecture ignores is that good absorbers are also good radiators so that the so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy.” This is wrong because no one in climate science ignores the fact that greenhouse gases emit as well as absorb. To claim otherwise is absurd. Consequently, the conclusion is unsupported, and in this case, false.

    Are you seriously arguing there is no greenhouse effect?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      No, I’m trying to get answers but y’all seem to want to talk about about something else.

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: No, I’m trying to get answers but y’all seem to want to talk about about something else.

        That’s fine. You can’t defend your claim, something essential to understanding greenhouse warming.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Wasn’t trying to and it wasn’t my claim.

          So are you assuming Arrhenius calculations from 1896 are correct?

          Never got an answer from y’all.

  23. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: So are you assuming Arrhenius calculations from 1896 are correct?

    They were close. He made some simplifying assumptions. Better methods have refined the calculation. Now it’s your turn. Are you seriously arguing there is no greenhouse effect?

  24. drowningpuppies says:

    They were close.

    Check his calculations from 1906 to see how “close” and get back to me.

  25. Jeffery says:

    Why doesn’t the “nighttime” side of the moon stay warm like Earth does?

  26. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Check his calculations from 1906 to see how “close” and get back to me.

    2.1°C, which is within the modern range of 2-4°C.

    drowningpuppies: Why doesn’t the “nighttime” side of the moon stay warm like Earth does?

    Because the moon in a bit darker than the Earth, with an albedo of 0.12, the graybody temperature of the moon is somewhat warmer than that of Earth’s, about -3°C, but due to the lack of atmosphere and relatively slow rotational period, the temperature varies widely between daytime and nighttime temperatures.

    Now it’s your turn. Are you seriously arguing there is no greenhouse effect?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      In 1906 Arrhenius – who had by then come across the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, which greatly simplified his calculations and improved their accuracy – recalculated the effect of doubling CO2 on temperature and, in Vol. 1, no. 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, published his conclusion that a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase global temperatures by about 1.6 Celsius degrees (<3 Fahrenheit degrees).

      That second question I didn’t ask.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Are you seriously arguing there is no greenhouse effect?

      No, I argued the fallacy of AGW.

  27. Zachriel says:

    Jeffrey: Why doesn’t the “nighttime” side of the moon stay warm like Earth does?

    That comment should have been attributed to Jeffrey. The answer remains the same. However, the question was directed at drowningpuppies: Are you seriously arguing there is no greenhouse effect?

  28. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: No, I argued the fallacy of AGW.

    In fact, you claimed “greenhouse gases do not trap heat energy”. If you withdraw your claim, then that’s fine.

  29. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: that a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase global temperatures by about 1.6 Celsius degrees (<3 Fahrenheit degrees).

    That figure only includes the direct forcing due to CO2. In 1906, Arrhenius calculated a climate sensitivity, including the effects of water vapor, as 2.1°C. Later, he stated an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4°C (Arrhenius, Worlds in the Making 1908). These values are within the accepted range today of 2-4°C.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10014 access attempts in the last 7 days.