Demonstrators gather at the Washington Monument before marching to the U.S. Capitol during the March for Science on April 22, 2017, in Washington, D.C. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Aaron P. Bernstein

Thousands rally for truth, evidence-based policies at March for Science

WASHINGTON (RNS) When President Trump took office, scientists were chief among those who panicked.

After all, as a presidential candidate, Trump had referred to climate change as a hoax and had spoken suspiciously of vaccines, all while courting evangelical Christian voters, many of whom believe in creationism over evolution.

Now that the president has appointed cabinet members openly hostile to science, scientists all over the world say they have no choice but to take action.

And Earth Day (April 22), launched almost 50 years ago, marked the beginning of what supporters of science say is a new kind of activism among a group of people who have traditionally kept out of the political spotlight.

[ad number="1"]

Thousands of people all over the world participated in what was dubbed the March for Science.

Organizers said the march — not just from the Washington Monument to the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., but in more than 600 cities  — was a call “for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest.” Partners included the National Science Teachers Association, Advancing Chicanos/Hispanics & Native Americans in Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Bill Nye leads demonstrators on a march to the U.S. Capitol during the March for Science in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 2017. Photo courtesy Reuters/Aaron P. Bernstein


 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Among the most high-profile performers and speakers in Washington were Questlove and Bill Nye, better known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, a popular science educator.

“We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially, of the significance of science for our health and prosperity,” Nye said, as a crowd of thousands waved signs and cheered in front of the Washington Monument.

“Our lawmakers must know and accept that science serves every one of us.”

Although organizers described science as a nonpartisan issue — noting that one of the goals for the march was to affirm that “science is a democratic value” — many that gathered for the event made clear they were no fans of the current presidential administration.

[ad number="2"]

Some in the crowd cited, for example, the White House’s recently revealed plan to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31 percent and to cut more than 20 percent of the agency’s current workforce.

Dressed in purple and yellow superhero costumes, brother-and-sister team Eli and Gwenden Dueker traveled to the march to stand up for the EPA.

Eli Dueker, a 46 year-old professor of environmental microbiology at Bard College in upstate New York, said he thought it was time for scientists to acknowledge that like other politically active citizens, they too have concerns and priorities.

As a transgender person, he said, he also wanted to highlight the fact that scientists are a diverse group that include women, religious people and people of color.

Rachel Anderson, 32, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience and is an alcohol researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, said she decided to attend the March for Science April 22, 2017, in Washington, D.C., because she was worried about proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health funding. RNS photo by Lilly Fowler

Rachel Anderson, 32, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience and is an alcohol researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, said she decided to attend that march because she was worried about proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health funding.

“I think there’s just a lack of respect for science. It’s being brushed off as a liberal agenda and science helps all people,” Anderson said.

Asked whether she believed the Trump administration had more respect for religion than science, the researcher said she didn’t think that was the main problem.

“I think a lot of politicians pretend to be more religious than they are as a way to rally support for themselves” she said.

Some, however, did cite concerns about religion playing too much of a role in the administration. Dressed in a light blue lab coat and dark blue bowtie, Sean Ravel, 16, who attends Reservoir High School in Fulton, Md., was among the many children and teens who attended the march. Ravel said he worried about Vice President Mike Pence's conservative evangelical views, especially his belief in creationism, but said that wasn’t the case for Trump.

[ad number="3"]

“I think he’s mostly appealing to his base,” Ravel said of Trump and religion. At the same time, he said, “I absolutely believe he doesn’t care about climate change and the well-being of the planet.”

Colleen Armstrong, 41, a nurse from Grand Rapids, Michigan, echoed those views.

“The president pandered toward conservative Christians but does not have those beliefs personally,” Armstrong said. Armstrong said she was concerned about the Trump administration’s impact on wildlife and national forests.

Marchers gather on the grounds of the Washington Monument for the March for Science April 22, 2017, in Washington, D.C. RNS photo by Lilly Fowler

Despite a steady stream of rain throughout the day, marchers remained enthusiastic. Some ducked into coffee shops to try to dry off.

Casper Uhl, 43, a contractor for the Federal Communications Commission, took a break inside a Starbucks before going back outside and joining the march. He said ever since the election, he had made it a point to become more politically active.

As Uhl headed back outside, he grabbed a sign with an image of a polar bear and ice melting that read, “Let’s now paws for a moment of science.”

A DNA strand next to the title of the series.

Comments

  1. Excellent news. Thank you. The resistance to extremism continues to impress.

  2. Evidence-based policies? What a novel idea.

  3. Sounds like some are unhappy that the government grant pipelines are being shut off.

    It would really be interesting to know what % of the marchers have any scientific or engineering knowledge, & how many are activists or political followers. On most surveys of “scientists” I’ve seen, most don’t bother responding, That in itself says much.

  4. I reading that the Right is gloating about the smaller than expected turn out.

  5. That’s irrelevant who really turns out. The message is the contempt some on the right have for science when it doesn’t agree with their political or religious agenda.

  6. A much of the results from that “pipeline” keep us all healthy, and make our modern lifestyle possible. Private industry doesn’t and won’t do it all. Some advancements aren’t profitable and therefore never would have happened.

  7. There is a science to making a cigarette. There is a science to curing lung cancer. All of Christianity is not free of some cancers. Not so sure if I want to see the world free of Christianity, or science. I might consider the elimination of rabbit feet but I want to see evidence of harm first.

  8. Yes, let’s hear it for science! Especially with an administration that is as anti-science as Trump’s. ED

  9. Sure, I’m all for science — meaning facts rather than guesstimates and opinions. Once you start talking about “consensus,” you’re dealing with politics, not science.

  10. People are unhappy because of the inequity of the government pipelines that are being shut-off. The pipelines for corporate welfare and the richest 1-2% – and all their accompanying leeches – are being kept completely wide open, while the pipelines for anything that supports the other 98% – areas of health, education, environmental protections – are being squashed.

    Since when does one have to be a scientist or engineer in order to support science?

    I’m curious what kind of job you do where you see so many surveys of scientists.

  11. PLEASE don’t tell me that someone is STILL recycling this tired, tedius drivel about corporate welfare and the richest 1-2%!

    Mom, Darling, you need to get out more!

  12. After all who really likes clean air and water anyway. Those ingrates!

    I see in every argument against established scientific theories a bunch of egotistical amateurs who pretend they know better on a subject then actual experts in the field conducting countless research and subjecting their findings to peer review process. The people who don’t understand why we don’t take medical advice from former nude models, or dieting advice from actors.

    It makes no difference how many of them are scientists themselves. They are smart enough to understand that scientific consensus is credible to a lay public in of itself and requires high levels of expertise to challenge it. More importantly they see how political anti science agendas cause harm.

  13. Post Modernism never leaves out the religious left’s religious views of science–which i love science its just become politicized and become a wedge against christians..leftists are into extremism because they hate us oh yes the so called tolerant left! what a joke! But actually I believe this was not about ‘science’ but another attempt to denigrate Trump and his policies! Priceless.

    Just to prove my point i’ll get hate mail here in less than 1 hour!

  14. Nope. You didn’t read the prior comment in full. It’s about scientific research being quashed for political agendas.

  15. Many of them come with direct application to military issues such as keeping soldiers alive.

  16. Only if you are ignorant of the scientific review process. Consensus in a scientific field comes from the weight of the evidence and research accumulated. It is not a popularity or political contest.

    But those who ignorantly attack evidence based science make such claims. (See Creationists, climate change denial, and anti vaxxers)

  17. “Although organizers described science as a nonpartisan issue — noting
    that one of the goals for the march was to affirm that “science is a
    democratic value” — many that gathered for the event made clear they
    were no fans of the current presidential administration.”

    No FANS of the current administration? That’s GOTTA be the understatement of the century! It’s apparent to anyone with eyes and a pulse, that all these are Trump haters who grab onto anything to make President Trump look like an evil, ignorant, mysoginistic, anti-science neanderthal!

    Barak Obama was most certainly anti-business. For all his supposed-intelligence, it was far beneath him to learn anything about the dynamics of money and how modern golbal economies work. Did we see big crowds of people mounting pro-business marches and rallies? I certainly didn’t! No one organied anything that favored business, but many of the liberal clergy protested loudly that Obama wasn’t moving even further to the left and advocating those tired old Marxist remedies for all the economic and financial challenges our country faced at that time!

  18. Nope. You didn’t read my MY comment in full! I was referring to TMom’s tired rant about corporate welfare, etc. etc.

    It’s quite apparent to anyone who reads, that you’re really bent on making your judgmental comments rather than first reading and responding accurately to what someone has expressed!

  19. Repealing clean air and water regulations doesn’t do much to show a concern for environmental it health sciences. Having to conduct climate change studies on the downlow through the department of defense doesn’t either. (Mattis has a thing for ignoring or trolling his own boss).

    Putting creationists in the department of energy, education and interior show a complete disregard for evidence based science in areas which employ them.

    BTW Obama is gone. You have to figure out the merits of Cheeto right now. So far I see nothing of value coming from him. It isn’t trumps opponents which make out to appear dishonest, ignorant, misogynistic or anti science. It’s his own words and actions. Oblaming can’t make Trump look competent.

  20. “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    Quoted from “Aliens Cause Global Warming”
    A Speech by Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology
    Pasadena, CA, January 17, 2003

    Cal Tech doesn’t invite “those who ignorantly attack evidence based science,” or those who “are ignorant of the scientific review process” to address its students and faculty.

  21. One of the more recent survey is the Strengers, Verheggen, Vringer, 2015 Climate Study of scientists in the Netherlands & Australia.

    A most interesting item was that only 1868 of the 6550 people invited to participate actually responded. Or most, did NOT feel it was important enough to reply.

    Of those who did reply, 1232 felt humans contributed to more then 51% of the global warming. While 635 thought that humans contributed less then 50%, or didn’t know.

    A far cry from the 97% figure so often quoted in the media, & the lack of concern among climate scientists.

  22. It is relevant.

    If there are mostly activists there, & few scientists marching, one could get the impression, science is not the issue. More then likely politics is.

  23. Over 40 years of engineering & consulting.

    What’s yours?

  24. Cute quote mine from a medical doctor and sf writer who never did an ounce of scientific research a day in his life and lacks an iota of expert background on the subject.

    Much like quoting Ben Carson on evolution or history. A mouthy amateur who makes ridiculous statements about the scientific research process itself.

    Michael Crichton’s work isn’t known for its rigorous research on the topics touched in them. He is a decent enough author, but prone to ridiculousness.

    Again, ignorance of the topic informs an opinion on scientific consensus. Mistaking it for a political one.

  25. So what % of the “pipeline keep us all healthy, and make our modern lifestyle possible” was funded by the government?

    Was it the government that funded the self cleaning plow, the McCormick reaper, the internal combustion or steam engine, the steamboat, the windmill, light bulb, electric power generation, the airplane & auto, the Jacquard loom, etc.?

    These are some of the most basic inventions needed to feed, clothe, & transport necessary for the modern life style, But it is in the interest of the nation to have a co-operative program of private & government technology to provide the necessary tools to sustain that nation.

  26. Bingo!!!

    You packed in at least six different rwnj cliches in one post! Filled my card. Thanks.

  27. No link huh? Doesn’t do much for the veracity of the claims asserted in the alleged study nor give a clue as to its source. Something important in surveys to determine preexisting bias in questions presented.

  28. “So what % of the “pipeline keep us all healthy, and make our modern lifestyle possible” was funded by the government?” The part that wasn’t profitable for business to develop. Every university does research that the gov funds because it looks promising, but perhaps with no obvious use… yet. It’s said that if the pharmaceutical companies were looking for a cure for polio there would be an iron lung in every home today,,, but it would have WIFI. Why cure a potential life long (though short life perhaps) disease when you can have a life-long customer. Besides, I think you will find that many of the inventions you listed wouldn’t be feasible without government support. Don’t forget the tax advantages private companies get for research…to say nothing of the patent protection.

  29. no but hillary sure tried the marxist tactic of blaming russia and Trump with the campaign she ‘entitled herself to win’ The blame game from hillary was all i remember in her last 6-10 speeches and nothing about her ideas..wow that got her somewhere!

  30. The credentials of Michael Crichton’s scientific education are impeccable: graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and taught courses on biological anthropology at Cambridge University. The point of bringing him up was to expose the counter-factual nature of your assertion that only those who are ignorant of the scientific review process, or those who ignorantly attack evidence based science, make such claims. That assertion is transparently false in Crichton’s case, and your riposte of diminishing him by calling his quotation “cute” does nothing to mask, dispel or refute that exposure. The man was a scientist first, and a successful writer after the fact, which is why he was invited to address the faculty and students at Cal Tech. He was as qualified as anyone to comment on the failures and dangers of “consensus science” – and a lot more qualified than you are.

  31. I’m aware of how the scientific review process is supposed to verify that studies/experiments are carried out properly, yes. I’m also aware of how careerism, empire-building, and group-think can impede scientific advancement.

  32. Evidently not if you mistake consensus caused by weight of accumulated evidence with political consensus.

  33. Michael Crichton’s credentials do not involve conducting any kind of scientific research. Much like Ben Carson’s ignorant ramblings about evolution. An expert in a field they are not addressing. An amateur spouting off on a subject they know nothing about.

    His books are loaded with half baked research misrepresented for paranoid effect. Fun potboilers but lacking in accuracy in presenting actual facts. He has always been a bit if a crackpot. Rising Sun and Disclosure come to mind here.

    The point of bringing up Michael Crichton was an appeal to authority. The problem is the guy has no authority on the subject to speak of.

  34. Not much for trying to find the merits often Cheeto. 🙂

  35. If consensus is caused by the weight of accumulated evidence, then that consensus doesn’t need to be offered as proof of the theory. No one argues that the earth circles the sun because most scientists agree that it does.

  36. That’s not how it works. A theory forms to best interpret the weight of evidence accumulated. A theory is disproved when an alternative interprets the evidence more accurately than the existing one.

    “No one argues that the earth circles the sun because most scientists agree that it does”

    Crackpots argue against evolution, the efficacy of vaccines and climate change even though most scientists state otherwise and have the weight of accumulated evidence to support their views. They make silly claims that scientific consensus is based on politics, not evidence or posit conspiracy theories to dismount the entirety of the methodological vetting process. It makes no difference what information or evidence is out there. They think of ways to ignore it.

  37. You are right, there are crackpots out there. And everyone ignores them, not because most scientists agree that they are crackpots, but because the evidence is against them. Theories because experiments based on them prove out, not because of “the consensus of scientists.” That consensus is supposed to follow the proof, not precede it. So until scientists are able to consistently, accurately predict future climate change, whatever consensus they come up with as to its causes is meaningless because they don’t yet know what they are talking about.

  38. “And everyone ignores them”

    Bullcrap! Trump has given several of them important government positions. Crackpot ideas are given political strength by the Republican Party as of now. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if it were not the case.

    “Theories because experiments based on them prove out, not because of “the consensus of scientists.”

    You are still hung up on a false definition of consensus here.

    Consensus of scientists occur precisely because experiments and research best supports the current theory. I mentioned this before. You ignored it. You continue to do so.

    Scientists agree because their research demonstrates the position they concur on. That is how the process works.

    “So until scientists are able to consistently, accurately predict future climate change”

    They have been doing so. They have been measuring the effects of it. Global warming theory fits the data collected on the subject to the most accurate interpretation we have.

    You are looking for excuses to discount evidence and pretend there are other motives in play.

  39. So which of the inventions I listed had government funding?

    Speaking of funding research, seems Bell Lab’s funded the invention of the transistor. In addition, many companies fund university research, most is probably applied, but there are many that do not have an immediate profit goal that you seem to imply.

    P.S. Forgot to add fracking to the list, otherwise you might be filling your car & lighting your home with foreign oil & natural gas. You might thank Sanoline Oil & Gas Corp, & evil Halliburton.

    P.P.S. Speaking of government health issues, who was asleep at the switch at the Flint MI water works.

  40. Scientists can now consistently, accurately predict future climate changes? That’s good news, indeed! Whose model beat out all the competitors? The last I heard, there are around forty different models out there.

  41. Plenty of accomplishments if you care to read or look..I guess some like yourself have a hard time due to low interest…and being a low cognizant voter as well..too bad..the stock market is up over 2100..N.Korea is backing down..china is reigning in kim due to Trump..the Wall is on standby and we have lower illegal crossings of our border in years. House sales jumped 6%..still at a low interest, Jobs are slowly being installed by our corporations..Assad now has 271 individuals who run corporations to affirm Assad’s chemical needs by Trumps monday’s sanctions. We have better relations with Israel unlike the muslim brotherhood obama was in love with. the U.S. constitutional laws are being used more adherently for our safety and concern for national defense and illegals are not taking the food benefits as much. looks like a better year for all americans..when are you packing up and moving to Syria?

  42. No shortage of that evidence of harm. Look no further than all the sexual abuse cases where priests are the offenders. And then there’s all the biblical instructions for killing and other violence. Almost as bad as that other nasty holy mythbook, the Koran.

  43. You made an utterly misleading reference to the conclusions of that survey, J_Bob. That survey, which I was actually involved in, concluded plainly that of climate experts surveyed, more than 90% thought that anthropogenic climate change was a reality.

    Caught you!

  44. See above. You made an utterly misleading reference to the conclusions of that survey, J_Bob. That survey, which I was actually involved in, concluded plainly that of climate experts surveyed, more than 90% thought that anthropogenic climate change was a reality.

    I can post a link to that survey, along with those for several similar studies, but before I do that, let’s see if you will fess up to your misdeed.

    Caught you!

  45. A near accidental war with Russia, making operations more difficult for our Iraqi and Kurdish allies against ISIS.

    A game with NK that Cheeto is too dumb to realize is just a shakedown for aid money

    A wall which will never be built but will take away funding and resources needed to improve infrastructure.

    Trump taking credit for things which developed before he took office

    Attacking clean air and water for the benefit of the American people I guess.

    Plus profiteering on a scale unseen since the 19th century.

    Wasting resources to make illegal alien labor more profitable and hamstring efforts at capturing violent offenders.

    Permitting attacks on voting rights of minorities.

    “illegals are not taking the food benefits as much”

    Less of nothing is still nothing. It wasn’t happening in the first place.

  46. Making you unqualified to speak about climate science or the scientific research process.

  47. We are talking about things in geological time. They can interpret current data to the most accurate framework available. A model beats out competition by being more accurate in interpreting evidence. Differences in mechanisms don’t refute a useful and tenable theory.

  48. Obama spent 10 Trillion dollars of hard earned tax money–my question is What did we get? A weakened military – bad race relations, jobs were not fully developed and illegals got more than most americans could get in anyone’s lifetime..there were no one was impinged upon to vote – in fact the estimate is over half million were illegal votes- the only way dems can win is to cheat..that’s why they want illegals here that’s their base line..but they don’t care about them at all..its just a number. My air and water are not affected unless you live back east where they had lead in their water ,,not by trump but bad infrastructures that are old. profiteering what is he getting? name them!! trump is cutting waste and duplicate middleman mgmt. jobs in all depts..the recent census is we have more govt workers than manufacturing jobs- that he will change!

  49. Appreciate this posting. My husband joined in this event on the National Mall. Rain-soaked but worthwhile March for Science. Ummm, we probably need more of them given the current climate.

  50. Statism- meaning bigger govt. never gets the government off our backs! Over regulating diminishes jobs jobs and proper techniques don’t make the environment worse..i know i live in oregon where there is plenty of chinook and Steelhead to catch..in fact were having record numbers again..no one is going to screw with the environment here as long as the these fisheries produce record numbers for anglers!

  51. jobs are coming back to Oregon slowly but housing developments are way up here..

  52. And what did Trump do to create those conditions? Nothing. Taking credit for stuff in motion before he got there.

    Right now housing prices are rising in NYC due to a bubble caused by Chinese and Russian kleptocrats trying to launder money here. Actual residents are being boned.

  53. Unless you are a college poli-sci professor you are using the term statism incorrectly and as a silly epithet for anything not related to an alleged libertarian position. Big government protects the rights of its citizens from those with the resources to essentially buy their way out of legal obligations to others.

    Over an over again deregulation has led to economic disaster and the boning of the general public. Undermining the trust and reliability of the two primary forms of middle class wealth: securities and personal real estate. Every major recession in the last 40 years was caused by deregulation.

    Deregulation destroys our health and jobs by allowing deadly pollution to lay waste to our communities and lives.

    Small government also means greater corruption and attacks on civil liberties. When you take away oversight all hell runs lose.

    If you aren’t independently wealthy and support small government libertarian policies, you are a f00l who attacks their own economic interests. Shooting yourself in the foot and blaming others for it.

  54. Got anything from an actual news source?

    Oblaming doesn’t make Cheeto more honest or competent.

  55. Still not seeing the merits of Cheeto here. Oblaming isn’t making you sound credible or sane here. Especially when blaming him for efforts of his opponents and relying on a bunch of patently false assertions here. Far too many for me to unpack right now.

    You appear predisposed to spew nonsense when it comes to democrats but are asking for evidence for Republicans.

    BTW the whole voter fraud thing is complete nonsense used to keep urban minorities and elderly people from rightfully voting. So take your democrats cheat garbage and shove it up your sphincter.

    All you have demonstrated is you are easily fooled or just don’t give a crap.

  56. I guess you are full of it. After all, its not like you wanted to be believed anyway. 🙂

  57. Obama is the darling of the left they cover for obama. trump gets hit and he shrugs it off. Trump has done more for america by doing away with lame regulations we don’t need and calling out russia- Syria and NK ?obama just played golf and ran up 10 trillion- yeah i have a right to blame obama– i’m called a voter!

  58. read the news source..ohh i’m supposed to listen to the CRAP NEWS NETWORK with don lemon head! ha! CNN is a joke

  59. We don’t live in geological time, when it comes to reasonable legislation we need to know what the climate will be like in five, ten, twenty, fifty years. If the models can’t give us accurate forecasts within that timeframe, they are useless to legislators. And from what I’ve read, they can’t.

  60. now you know what its like for those of us who put up with obama’s marxist leftist nonsense..the US constitution was subverted..You liberals all you want to do is hate america and bring it down and distribute wealth that doesn’t belong to you..communist

  61. A simple “no” would have sufficed.

    Something tells me you are more comfortable in discussion boards for Breitbart or Townhall. I dont have the patience to deal with the flurry of fiction and crazy you post. I am just going to block you and move on.

  62. So you were not “fooled” by 10 trillion dollars spent on crap!? Wow you need to get a life..

  63. That is a false dilemma. We can act regardless of difference in models.

    First of our starts by not denying climate change in general. Causes also can be addressed such as fossil fuel use without worrying about differences in models. BTW much of the policy efforts to address global warming have a myriad of other beneficial effects in of themselves. Reduction in fossil fuel dependence means a cleaner environment, political stability and improved public health.

    You posed an issue for scientists amongst themselves but it is an irrelevance from a political perspective.

  64. The military is the biggest supporter of scientific research which benefits the general public. Things that keep soldiers alive and effective translate directly into things that do the same for the general public. The military has funded more society defining inventions and research than any for profit efforts.

    The government through the military gave you both that computer and internet you are posting on.

  65. “Michael Crichton’s credentials do not involve conducting any kind of scientific research.”

    So, you’re saying only active researchers are qualified to comment on the scientific validity of someone else’s statements? No more than an accountant has to be professionally active in accounting in order to catch an error in someone else’s sums. He just needs to know accounting (or arithmetic!) well enough to spot where something was done wrong.

    “The point of bringing up Michael Crichton was an appeal to authority.”

    Wait a minute – you’re slamming me for appealing to authority, while you’re standing behind the “authority” of your phony “consensus?” Now, that’s a hoot!

    No—the point of bringing up Michael Crichton was to give the lie to your claim that only scientific ignoramuses criticize “consensus science.” Crichton clearly understands science well enough to make the statements he did. And Cal Tech plainly agreed that he had something scientifically relevant to tell them, or they wouldn’t have invited him to speak on the issue. Point made and verified: QED.

  66. Wow dude let me roll that and smoke it for a while.

    There are some bad cops out there, maybe we should get rid of police departments? Or how about teachers who abuse students, get rid of school? If you read a super man comic book are you going to be smart enough not to jump out of a window thinking you can fly?

    Come on man you can do better than this old crap if you want to challenge what I believe.

  67. Again someone who does not understand why experts on a field are given credence over people who lack any conceivable background in a subject.

    “So, you’re saying only active researchers are qualified to comment on the scientific validity of someone else’s statements? ”

    If the statements concern research, yes. One should know what is talking about when one critiques a field of specialized study.

    Critiques of methods used by experts are best made by experts in the same field. Not egotistical types lacking direct know-how.

    Michael Crichton doesn’t know his rear from his elbow on the subject of scientific research or the process of methodological review. He never worked within it. His authority on anything here comes from a reputation in other areas

    He is no more an expert on the subject or qualified to challenge the scientific expert community than Jenny McCarthy is on the subject of medical science.

    Expertise is how we separate credible from crackpot. Crichton is definitely a crackpot.

    Arguing that expertise needs to be ignored or discounted on a scientific subject is the sign of someone pushing a nonsense agenda. Creationists do that nonsense all the time as do conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, anti vaxxers and general crackpots. It undermines any credibility of trust in evidence.

    Crichton isn’t a famous or even qualified scientist. He is a fiction writer and film director.

    There is nothing phony about scientific consensus. It develops from the weight of evidence and the best available theories to interpret it. Your misguided or dishonest conflation with political consensus demonstrates an ignorance of the issues which you have to overcome first.

  68. Good your head is still muddy from my onslaught of truth..by the way you should feel proud as to how the left have dismantled our country for over 40 years or better- obama took us for a ride to hell and back without regard to a constituion! thanks to morons like yourself we’ll be rebuilding the stonework of our country for another 50 years since the damage was so incredible..but hey you like it this way- hate america and buy chinese goods Handouts to every body who hates us and the band plays on in your damaged mentality.

  69. When you stop being an SJW and quit reciting the pablum marxist rhethoric from your college days you just might find a decent mental dialogue in your head- hating america because you think were oppressive and too white and dominate a world is somehow a bad thing for you leftists..i’ll bet crying in a safe room makes you feel better..instead of making changes as to how we on the right think.

  70. Sure, we can act, but if we can’t trust any of the models to accurately forecast future climate change why would we want to base any legislative policy going forward on them? Like the old rule of computer programming says, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    And sure, there are reasonable arguments for reducing oil dependence — I wouldn’t mind waving goodbye to the Middle East from the last oil tanker to leave it myself — but when activists accuse the administration of being anti-science those arguments aren’t what they are referring to, it’s global warming. And that makes them anti-science dogmatists, since they are the ones demanding that we accept opinions as fact.

  71. Because you first have to acknowledge the issue exists first. Baby steps. You are still working off a false issue here. The exact predictions are not important here. How it is occurring is far less important than the acknowledging of what is occurring.

    “but when activists accuse the administration of being anti-science those arguments aren’t what they are referring to, it’s global warming”

    Because it is being denied outright which is anti science.

  72. Agreed, actually acknowledging what is happening is important, and so is acknowledging why. And looking at the lower tropospheric temperature average from 1979 to the present, we’ve gained about 0.7 degrees C, less than 1 degree F (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/01/global-temperature-report-january-2017/ chart at the bottom). Not exactly earth-shattering. And then there’s the problem of proving that humanity is the primary cause. Because if we aren’t (as is almost certainly the case, since the primary driver of Earth temperatures is most likely the Sun), there’s not much we can do to change it — certainly not without massive economic costs.

  73. Not really. Anthropomorphic causes are only well estsblished by the weight of the evidence collected by the experts in the field. The people who have actual and evidence based knowledge on the subject. Unlike either of us.

  74. No, G J, it is your beliefs that are obviously “old crap”, to use your own derogatory language. The foul Christian holy book has explicit directions for all manner of violent deeds. It is a crazy old collection of myths by many human authors, nothing more.

    Furthermore, you present a set of false equivalences; the standard-bearers of your religion should do better than others, but regularly do not, and then in cases such as the Catholic church, the higher-ups hide their misdeeds.

    So, let’s start you off on the good road of leaving your loony Christian delusions behind. First, do you agree that your god, according to your bible, threatens us with eternal torture for certain “sins” committed in our short mortal lifetimes? Yes or no answer please.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  75. INTRODUCTION
    “Approximately 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Question 1 was answered by 1868 respondents; the subsequent questions by progressively fewer people”. p.5

    General Questions Recent Trends – 1st screening question:
    p. 7.8.
    Since the graphic result to not lend to pasting here, here is the reference:

    http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

    I find it strange that one who said he/she took part in the survey, would have read it. However, your saving grace may be in how one defines the term “climate expert”.

    Many years ago, a statistics classic was published “How to Lie With Statistics”, This book showed how to skew statistical result to a particular flavor. Similar to what the famous ex-cartoonist & climate commentator John Cook spread out. The 97% consensus.

  76. On the contrary, comparing Spuddie’s remarks with your own, there is far more hating, crying, and insulting in your comments than in his.

  77. As for damaged mentality, your insult-laden posts show a lot of signs of that in your own case. Rather than just letting your pent-up frustrations out on the readers here, you should seek professional mental help.

  78. Assuming recent climate change, do to humans, is causing temperature
    increases on the planet, one would expect that the sea levels rise (going on since the last ice age) , should be increasing.

    Looking at the sea level records for the past 100+ years, it appears that there has been virtually no change in sea level rise per year corresponding to any CO2 increase.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/Holgate-9_Since1900-NEW.gif

    Leads one to question, how much, if any are humans contributing to climate change.

  79. “you need to get a life..” Speak for yourself….

  80. No, now you are merely hedging to hide your misdeed. As I said, the survey is clear that of climate experts surveyed, more than 90% thought that anthropogenic climate change was a reality.

  81. Ah, “climate4you.com”, that rigorous science journal…

  82. “Leads one to question, how much, if any are humans contributing to climate change”

    Only if one assumes you are citing a methodologically sound and factually verified source for your assertions. Otherwise one has to dispute or discount the assertions being made on the subject.

    Given you didn’t back up your last statement with anything and were already called out for misrepresenting facts on the subject, I find little need to take your assertions at face value.

    If you had established yourself as a scientist working in the field, then I could take your criticisms of the scientific issues and data seriously. Without such a background, you are simply an amateur making assertions which will lack a foundation of knowledge necessary to be credible.

  83. I make no apology for being truthful- i’m not hating and its also a bit disingenuous that you say this when i have been been far worse accosted on this media for my point of view by just being civil..when spuddie cannot answer a question or two and moves on and then says im blocking you- well thats defeat and one who can’t keep up…so why come to his defense..? If you want to pick up the questions i asked him and points i made from long reading and not just internet ..then you can answer them for him. Is that better- more fair?

  84. I have a good life..your cliche is like a ping pong ball hitting me…you need to read more and understand life..it’s not perfect and neither is this clown scientist who barks like an uncontrolled cutesy dog !

  85. Mark levin is my mentor to bash the leftists! i have a right ..so whats your problem..cant handle it..got a safe room? hmmmm? All you need is a good psychiatrist- and you don’t need a very expensive one-

  86. this over dramatic Bill Nye should hide his face in shame for the mediocre crap he foisted on others on the park lawn in D.C. what a sham of crappy nonsense..another trump bash for the leftists irreconciliables who called others like me ‘backwards, ‘unredeemable etc..thank hillary for her own hate she co-authored for you all to recite- such a redeemable quality such a role model..so inclusive so multicultural and open minded! …she and her feminist friends never called out Bill and others who partied with women for sex..yet you bash o’reilly..hmm so all is well in the halls of NBC, CNN, ABC etc and no sexual politics there ! I guess so! no YOU get a life as i stand back and laugh at your attempt to make the left ACCOUNTABLE as you do the RIGHT!! Hmmm isnt that hypocritical..yes it is..so call out the left and quit hiding the dirty laundry..psychologically you might benefit.

  87. Rally for Truth? Seriously! No let me dismantle this- you lost the election and Trump won..this was Trump bashing event!

  88. Marxists have a right to march and goose-step with fellow obstructionists of progress and common sense- with over 60 years of a slow liberal mangling of society- it just shows its not working!!! Many of these people are white- liberal- over educated and hate against the average Trump voter is a badge of honor! Wow such open mindedness and inclusiveness!

    When liberals stop hating america and the U.S. Constitution..then society might make a future for itself..but whites are at issue with anything the least bit conservative..hmmm maybe thats why cups at starbucks are RED!

  89. I don’t find God threatening. Why would I comply to a threat? Statements like I’m going to kick your a__ motivate me, they just don’t motivate me to comply with the alternative of getting what is being threatened.

    Please go on to the next question. I think you are about to convince me God is real, and really mad.

  90. Bill nye the pseudoscience guy should have also donned a pink pussy cap in his march as well to make the women feel more inclusive..what a mistake!

  91. yes and The communist leader Castro sure was the darling of the american liberal politicians when he died recently…this just shows what the liberal agenda is all about-creating Castro as a demi-god icon of justice and freedom when he had homosexuals murdered in his country and other religious atrocities against people of faith..nice guy…Obama hated christians and the left loved it! Cheeto Trump gave us the right to have an opinion without the gulag treatment you would like to inflict on people like myself…right Spuddie? Muslim countries in the middle east kill homosexuals..and christians as well..nice bravo hey but thanks to the left they over look these atrocities and bemoan Global warming as the biggest threat to mankind and over look human suffering …on a daily basis! Yes you do need a psychiatrist- you don’t need an expensive one to do good work ..but then again marxists are only happy when their ideologue is embraced even to the point of killing others for their cause.

  92. The Wall: the drug king pin of mexico–whats his name..he has 25 billion we seized..and A republican senator promoted the idea to use it to fund a wall..but of course your against it because it is unloving and just wrong..open borders, hows that working for people daily in the south? i have heard some bad stories of rape- drugs, murder and the list goes on..

  93. Define “science.”

    Marx considered himself a “scientist.” Although he wasn’t and never did any real research expected of academics, this didn’t stop millions of people around the world buying his ideas.

    You should read British humanist Julian Huxley’s articles for the British Spectator in the 1920s, writing that the “Negro brain” is different than the white brain. Then there’s Nobel Prize winner William Shockley (an atheist) who got into “cranium” sizes that he believed proved the genetic inferiority of blacks.

    Another Nobel Prize winner HJ Hermann argued that capitalism resulted in the lowering of IQs.

    Remember when public health officials and ACT-UP activists were advising people to use condoms with nonoxynol-9, which in high doses killed the AIDS virus in test tubes? However, n-9 also destroys human cells and increased the chances of transmission of the virus. This is why n-9 condoms were taken off the market. (The reason why the number of AIDS deaths declined was the development of retrovirals. Activists had a point about the FDA delaying new medications, but this can be traced back to the 1962 Kefauver law, passed in response to the thalidomide tragedy, which increased FDA approval from six months to 10 years.)

    I’m sure Dick Dawkins knows a lot about the nervous system of a mountain goat, but that doesn’t make him an expert in history, philosophy, religion, or economics.

    Is there any scientific or medical evidence that celibacy or abstaining from sex for an extended period of time leads to pedophilia or sex abuse?

    And how is it that Christopher Hitchens, another champion of “evidence,” kept ignoring that warning label on the box cigarettes? I enjoy a pipe and a cigar but since I’m religious, atheists and secularists don’t expect me to act according to their standards of “evidence” and “science.”

  94. Had you looked a bit farther at, climate4you, & known more about sea levels, you would have recognized the graph was from PSMSL.

    Established in 1933, the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) has been responsible for the collection, publication, analysis and interpretation of
    sea level data from the global network of tide gauges. It is based in Liverpool at the
    National Oceanography Centre (NOC), which is a component of the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

    It might be helpful for you, to know that Climete4you is not a journal, bit a site that provides links, graphical or interactive analysis of climate data, similar to woodfortrees.org.

  95. Saw a video on Billy nye, shredded by Tucker Carlson.

    And he’s the “science guy”?

    Heaven help this country.

  96. It was a sham- did you see the two female pom pom girls working up the crowd into a religious lather..it was so contemptible it was not funny but painful to watch, yet the educated whites there probably got all evangelical when Bill Nye got on stage and threw flower petals and candy at him as a buddhist omen of love..totally pathetic! totally painful to watch and the mediocrity of intelligence was on full display!

  97. when are the liberal left going to quit being the iconic “Ugly american” complex of loser mentality in a mediocre display of utter nonsense and see through the bill Nye Lies!

  98. I heard dozens of people not hundreds as the media tried to placate over the fruited plane of america’s air waves of free speech.

  99. name all the myths in alphabetical order- since your so acquainted with the book obviously..name them all..must be hundreds right? thousands maybe? Your hyperbole is as antiquated as to what you blame as untruthful..

  100. Bill nye should take a long vacation after the dismal display he promoted in a staged attempt to hijack and make trump look like a disingenuous person…did i say pathetic..oh any yes it was also deplorable in content. to think he thinks he is the “darling” of the left!

  101. Sure, and certainly some of any warming will be anthropogenic — we are increasing the atmospheric quantity of a greenhouse gas, it’s going to have an effect. But from what I’ve seen of evidence and findings, for the question of whether we are the PRIMARY cause of any temperature increase, so far the best judgment that could be rendered (or worst, depending on your POV) is the old Scottish verdict of “not proven.”

  102. I called the claim of climate consensus “phony” because the appearance of widespread agreement is contrived by systematically excluding scientific viewpoints that dissent from warmist alarmism.

    Among (many) other things, the hacked “Climategate” e-mails reveal that the community of AGW proponents is a clique of like-minded activists and bureaucrats who have manipulated data, hid information, destroyed records and tried to destroy the professional reputations of people who oppose their ideology or expose their scientific indiscretions. In sum – there is no other way to put this – they actively conspired to conceal any facts and shut out any point of view that threatened to damage their credibility.

    And to forestall your repeated claim that only scientific ignoramuses dispute the contrived climate consensus, consider this report from Obama’s former Energy Department Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin:

    http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8071/full/

    Here’s a relevant quotation from Koonin’s statement:

    “The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided.”

    But by all means, tell me the man doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  103. You have no basis of knowledge to make such a determination. You are relying strictly on personal feelings.

    As for “climatgeate”, you missed the end result of the story.
    “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

    As for Koonin, there is a lengthy rebuttal to what the physicist speaking outside his own area of expertise was saying.
    http://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/a-response-to-stephen-koonins-call-to-inaction-685?

    ” Koonin falls prey to some of the most common misconceptions about climate science. One of the most widely held is the idea that predictions of climate change rest solely on highly complex computer models. This is far from the case; basic physics and very simple models all show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations lead to nontrivial warming….If the computer had never been developed, climate science would still have identified the substantial risk incurred by changing by hundreds of percent the concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases. That is what we are on track to do within this century if current rates of growth of human greenhouse gas emissions continue.”

    “Finally we come to what we regard as the most egregious part of Koonin’s essay; namely, his implication that scientific uncertainties dictate that we do nothing. Outside the radical environmental movement and lesser media outlets, no one is claiming that uncertainty in climate projections is small.”

    Scientific issues are not settled by essays. If Koonin had a legitimate challenge to the prevailing theory, he should be doing his own research on the subject and publish the findings.

  104. “so far the best judgment that could be rendered (or worst, depending on your POV) is the old Scottish verdict of “not proven.””

    No, it is pretty much established by the weight of the evidence. Hence the scientific consensus on the issue.

  105. Both of those sites should be summarily rejected and cannot be touted as representing science; they are merely personal hobby sites, not refereed journals.

  106. Better look at a science journal.

  107. ” the mediocrity of intelligence was on full display” Just look in the mirror in your case to see that.

  108. Ahem, kev, you’re frothing at the mouth again.

  109. “All you need is a good psychiatrist- and you don’t need a very expensive one-” -speaking from your own experience, although your treatment plainly wasn’t successful.

  110. nice try bonzo..bill nye is a doofus in a bow tie..a charlatan of insults to anyone who dickers with his ideologue of GW and evolutionary concepts that have holes in that as well..of course you love those art iconic illustrations in science books now don’t you! They are mediocre and outdated and do not reflect true data in the field!

  111. He is part right! science is good for new discoveries’ in Health related issues’! But they have a dark side! Like creating Robots to replace US! They are doing it Now! Do Not Trust Science!!

  112. “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”

    So – the”clique of like-minded activists and bureaucrats” absolved itself of misbehavior. My, my, what a surprise – not.

    “As for Koonin, there is a lengthy rebuttal to what the physicist speaking outside his own area of expertise was saying.”

    Indeed – there IS a debate among scientists about the validity of Koonin’s critique. But that fact directly contradicts your claim that there is NO debate among (real) scientists about the validity of climate alarmism. You just shot yourself in the foot – and apparently don’t even realize it. Your outrageous claim that only scientific ignoramuses question the warmist ideology is dead in the water – and sinking as we speak.

  113. Yes you made it clear you have no idea how scientific consensus is built and have delusions as how such things are done. Every crackpot does. Koonin is not a climate scientist he wasn’t speaking of expertise on the subject any more than cheesy writer Michael Crichton.

    Now you are just spouting labels and showing how little you value objectivity or understanding of the scientific process. Like every other science denier, you egotistically claim knowledge you do not possess and use ridiculous conspiracy theory to pretend evidence collected and analyzed can just be handwaved away.

    Since you didn’t demonstrate the debate among people in the same field, you just do what every lying creationist does. Equate amateur ramblings with expert research.

  114. “…you didn’t demonstrate the debate among people in the same field…”

    You keep moving the goalposts. Your original blanket assertion was that ONLY those who are “ignorant of the scientific review process,” and “those who ignorantly attack evidence-based science,” would challenge “consensus science” or dissent from climate alarmism.

    Now, all of a sudden, being a qualified scientist who is fully versed in “the scientific review process,” and would certainly never “ignorantly attack evidence-based science” is not enough to constitute an exception to your overgeneralization. Now, in order to participate credibly in the climate debate (which you say doesn’t exist), the scientist has to be an to be active researcher “in the same field.”

    No – you’ve been caught out, your rant was revealed to be an ad hominem slander (and you’re still at it), but your terminological smokescreen can’t conceal your rhetorical slight of hand.

    Your highhorse is on its knees.

  115. Not at all. You just keep kicking the ball short of them

    I have had the same one since the beginning. Experts in the field have the requisite knowledge to criticize the methods and research of fellow experts in the field.

    Crackpots are egotistical amateurs who think they know more than the experts, despite lacking in the education/training/experience in the field and make excuses why they should be taken seriously despite no compelling reason to do so.

    “Your original blanket assertion was that ONLY those who are “ignorant of the scientific review process,” and “those who ignorantly attack evidence-based science,” would challenge “consensus science” or dissent from climate alarmism.”

    You added the ONLY part. Nice strawman you got.

    So far you have yet to show the weight of scientific evidence gathered by those in the field support your view. Instead you just attack the scientists gathering it and make wild claims of conspiracy and group think. Ignoring the process which led them to their conclusions. Collateral attacks because you lack the credible evidence to support your views.

    You cited only one scientist, but not one who works in the field. Not one who has conducted vetted research on the subject.

    Your tone and tactics are exactly the same as other science deniers such as Creationists. They have scientists and experts also to support their arguments. None of them however are in the relevant fields they critique. Making them simply gussied up amateurs on the subject.

  116. Ahh yes another dissatisfied social marxist who most likely thinks Castro, Pol Pot and Marx as well as Lenin and all the rest should be eulogized for their great contribution to human misery! Well done on your part to make them your very own plastic icon for the dash on your car that loves to guzzle that pesky stuff that’s killing all of us…yes cultural Marxism is a religion and you should know!!

  117. “You added the ONLY part. Nice strawman you got.”

    No – YOU put it there to begin with: “ONLY if you are ignorant of the scientific review process.” The “straw man” is yours.

    And now we move on to “science deniers” – ah, the inevitable warmist fallback: demonizing hyperbole. To call a person who disputes your interpretation of certain scientific data on a scientific basis, a “denier” of science is, of course, beyond preposterous. More to the point, it is intellectually lazy and dishonest, and exposes your personal passion as exactly the politicized partisanship that it is.

  118. I can’t help it if you use the same exact types of arguments and tactics of other cranks.
    -Ridiculous claims that all scientists in a field are just being political and suppressing contrary claims
    -ignoring, misrepresenting and downright attack on the accumulation and evaluation of present evidence
    -reference and criticism by people who lack expertise in the subject
    -pretenses of knowledge and attacks on the notion of expertise

    You have done the same thing as crearionists, anti vaxxers, holocaust deniers, 9/11 trufers, conspiracy theorists and other people who adopt ideas which run counter to prevailing evidence and knowledge.

  119. So, you edited your previous post to remove your “straw man” reference? Nice propagandistic touch. What was that for — to save your intellectual reputation? Too late.

  120. Nope. If it’s gone, then it must have been flagged. I tend to use saucy language. I would not be surprised nor notice. Not bothering to go to the full discussion. Just disqus notifications.

    Or you are just paranoid. 🙂

  121. No, your god plainly threatens us with eternal torture in hell, according to your holy book. One example of many:

    Matthew 13:41-42
    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    It’s a disgusting delusion that you are stuck in, and a silly one. Get over it already.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  122. No, not hyperbole, just honest conclusions from a critical look at your silly mythbook. A few examples to humor you a bit:
    the Noah’s Ark myth
    the divine Jesus myth
    the creation myths of Genesis
    the silly stories about how diseases propagate
    the age of the earth
    the shape of the earth (not even consistent there)
    and on and on.
    It’s mostly rubbish, with a few historical markers thrown in -the latter being a standard propaganda trick.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  123. No one is threatening you…you must feel guilty if you have that thought

  124. You send yourself there by rejecting him and his offer of life…he Will not make you do anything against free Will

  125. Your religion is post modernism..you make up what you believe and that is your truth..no one is asking for you to believe it has to come from within

  126. If you tagged yourself reason over atheism and used this this verse the way you are using it to convince someone they should change their atheistic beliefs, I have a term for that. If “old crap” is to derogatory, then let me clean it up and call this argument “pure shit”. Smile it’s a joke.
    What your referencing here is Jesus explaining a parable. To read the parable go back to verses 24-29. These “weeds” that are going to get burnt up are inside the “kingdom of heaven”. Would you consider yourself inside the kingdom of heaven?
    If you start at the first of chapter 13 Jesus talks about a farmer sowing seed. If any of this is true would one of these exsamples fit you? Read verses 18-23 to see the parable explained.
    You can do better than this. Make me think about what I believe.
    I’ve got something for you. If I believe in God and you don’t, I say there is very little difference about us. What I mean by that. I say what we believe has very little impact on us until we start thinking about what we believe. What do you think about when you think about not believeing in God?
    This is definitely not a yes or no answer so take your time.
    PS and quit borrowing my deragatory terms.

  127. I get a couple of impressions about your & Spuddie:

    1- Sounds like you two are one of the same. Kind of like the blind leading the blind, or a couple of sales people “scratching each other’s back”.

    2-From your comments, you don’t talk or post like working engineers & scientists I’ve worked with over the decades. Your talk is loose & basically a pontificate of your questionable opinion.

    Bye

  128. Right you Kev! People believe what they want to believe! But if the do not follow the truth of the ten commandments, they will just reincarnate , and do it over again! The message of love! Being grateful! and helping on another is what Jesus preach! It is very true! Universal Law! Or we are truly a Souless being!

  129. Your wrong in regard to reincarnation, you do not get a second chance at life, Gods message was not Universalism (the Pope believes this but it is not in the Bible) as you seem to adhere to..this is Gods message of love-To accept Christ jesus for his Redemptive work on the cross and receive him fully- not partially.his act of love and grace accepts you into his kingdom but if you do not that is your choice- you send yourself to eternal separation from Him

    Hebrews 9:27King James Version (KJV)

    27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

    Hebrews 9:27American Standard Version (ASV)

    27 And inasmuch as it is [a ]appointed unto men once to die, and after this *cometh* judgment; Footnotes:

  130. When you list this this is just rhetoric- can you substantiate all of these categories logically and individually in a truly collegiate manner or are you just going to spout off in all directions as I’ve heard this rhetoric before from others in a non open minded spectacle of white washing in broad strokes.this is not convincing. You first since you brought it up…if you’re so inclined to tackle this massive undertaking..which i know you’re not. It’s a smokescreen and tactic to try and have the last word. Embellish me!

    “A critical look” as you say..I plainly don’t believe you..most people i know who have tried this finally read the Bible and found it to be true

  131. False as usual from you, kev. Read and think, for a change:

    Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    Again, in your wretched, horrid holy book, your “god” threatens torture in hell repeatedly for various “sins” of a short mortal life. That is a hateful, excessively vengeful being that should be rejected utterly, not one that should be worshipped.

    Further, the foundational story of your crazy Christian superstitions is that Christ the son of god was sacrificed to save sinners. That story is complete nonsense out of the gate. How is it that an omnipotent being couldn’t do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus’ death a “sacrifice”, when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

    Your religion is based on a plainly false foundation, and is mostly fiction with a few historical markers thrown in, just like other effective propaganda. Just get over it and get with reality already.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  132. No, kev. Any being such as your sicko sky fairy whose “holy” text is loaded with errors, self-contradictions, and threats of eternal torture such as the nasty Christian bible is, for the “sins” of a short mortal life is is not a being worth of worship.

    2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
    In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

    Revelation 14:10-11
    The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Further, the foundational story of your crazy Christian superstitions is that Christ the son of god was sacrificed to save sinners. That story is complete nonsense out of the gate. How is it that an omnipotent being couldn’t do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus’ death a “sacrifice”, when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

    Your religion is based on a plainly false foundation, and is mostly fiction with a few historical markers thrown in, just like other effective propaganda. Just get over it and get with reality already.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  133. Your ad hominem is noted, and otherwise rejected, along with the rest of your unsupportable drivel above.

    Glad to be rid of you.

  134. No, Trump merely conned enough fools such as yourself to get himself elected.

  135. Now you are merely sputtering. Your ad hominem -loaded comment record above speaks for itself.

  136. Read the last line: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

    re·li·gion
    rəˈlijən/
    *noun*

    1.
    2. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    “ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
    synonyms: faith , belief , worship , creed ; More
    – a particular system of faith and worship.
    plural noun: *religions*
    “the world’s great religions”
    – a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. “consumerism is the new religion”

  137. I hope that your pursuit of interest you ascribe to religiously and try to ascribe to others and in doing so trying to make me believe you don’t have religion is false..your a fanatic in the pursuit that there is no God… I stand corrected.

  138. It is also obvious you never actually pursued in a critical amass of past interest to study the word of god..because you failed again to answer the claims you made earlier. You went right back to the inflammatory nonsense I’ve heard for years and years..proof you never pursued anything other than your own post modernist viewpoint which by the way is also a religionists pursuit philosophy so to speak in post modernistic philosophy by many today. Ask any professor in college and he will agree with my logic.

  139. No Bill Nye the non science guy made a buffoon of himself with the mediocre crap he was leading last week with horrible skits like my sex junk.yet the amassed white over educated morons who voted for Clinton were exposing themselves to that lousy display of Rally for science was below mediocre and amateurish at best yet you ate it up as well as clinton’s lies. White people are so dumb…especially liberals who can’t think for themselves and want the NANNY-STATE to do it for them!

  140. The musical skit was the worst display of nonsense for a music video in the history since MTV came up with this stuff..seriously people look at the dismal display of crap nonsense that Bill Nye was a part of…Years ago he talked about sex as male and female, but due to POST MODERNISTIC liberal dialogue he now embraces a non scientific view of what your biological sex is…in my own words..he is a reprobate and has a reprobate mind..yet he got congratulated by all these sheep pandering to the new identity of the human race.
    God will give you over to a reprobate mind if you wish to be this way..Free Will is all yours in denying truth and embracing a lame lie that has been purported for the millenia of mankind’s total disregard for ethics and science as has been already proven. Yet i’m now waiting for the next Senator or Congress person to further make a fool of themselves as Nye did and I will stand back and laugh at the spectacle. These people need to be saved from how sin and disregard for real science they deny and continually as they plunge themselves and their children headlong into more confusion and so called ‘normalcy’ .

  141. Reason over Religion, you are doing a great job responding to kev´s ridiculous posts. kev doesn´t seem to even have the ability to put a coherent post together, especially given his latest botched mess above.

    To add to RoR´s quote, atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color :-).

    Keep up the good work RoR, against the non-science and non-thinking that kev and his ilk represent. Much appreciated.

  142. Actually, a bigger part of the problem has been the takeover of the conservative side by the god-fraud cult known as Christianity. As an ardent capitalist and true fiscal conservative, I work actively to weed out delusions such as the Christian one for the benefit of our nation.

    Religion is intrinsically anti-science and is counter to scientific and industrial progress. Being competitive in the modern world requires scientific and technical literacy, and religion is the opposite of that. Stop religion now.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  143. good your’re a capitalist..but why would you vote for a Bill Nye retard guy and a Hillary clinton when she is a socialist-statist who wants to rule like a self entitled queen.?

  144. I have my rights and reason to believe..also T-Rex red tissue was found in the bones a few years ago- no organic material can last that long but only 50k years not 350 million- Why does science refuse to look at the evidence? Why? I’ll tell you- because they have IDEOLOGY over REASON!

  145. False again kev, as usual from you. Organic material actually can last much longer than that, in certain environmental conditions such as hypoxic atmospheres and low temperatures.

    Unlike your religion and its adherence to its loony dogma, science does look at evidence, and further, is openly subject to revision. The common peer review process of scientific journals also works quite well. Science and its complementary processes are not a perfect system, but they are far better than the rigid dogma of pathetic superstitions such as Christianity and Islam.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  146. Since you ask, I didn’t think Hilary was a good candidate. Better than con artist Trump, but not nearly as good as Joe Biden would have been.

  147. /Sorry your wrong I went online and found all the scientists say NOTHING organic can still be of protein tissue and rubbery beyond 50k years in nature due to calcination or mineralization from organics..that’s why we have so much coal and oil..its not in it’s natural form of plants;
    and meat tissue would be gone due to decay..T-rex did not die 165 million years ago and this was founded by an evolutionary scientist. once again Ideology over reason- it is your religion and right to believe in what is of high interest you and your cause for how we got here.

  148. No, G J. Again, your mythbook AKA the bible is loaded with your nasty sky fairy’s threats, and the parable dodge won’t work for you here.

    2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
    In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.

    Revelation 14:10-11
    The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

    Revelation 20:10
    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    Further, the foundational story of your crazy Christian superstitions is that Christ the son of god was sacrificed to save sinners. That story is complete nonsense out of the gate. How is it that an omnipotent being couldn’t do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus’ death a “sacrifice”, when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

    Your religion is based on a plainly false foundation, and is mostly fiction with a few historical markers thrown in, just like other effective propaganda. Just get over it and get with reality already.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

  149. Okay, so you don’t get what I believe. I understand. You didn’t mention the joke. Does this mean you liked the joke? I said “old crap” about something you said. You stole my “old crap” term and called it “degragatory”. Then I said let me clean it up and said “pure shit”. It’s a play on words, you see crap and…never mind.
    I’m glad you’re not mad about the joke, and only about my beliefs. We could read some of the paragraphs that come before and after the verses you site, but that would just be another dodge. Right?

    Look bottom line. There are people who post on here who disagree with what I believe. I respect the conclusions on belief that they have come to because I respect the process they used to come to their conclusion. I have more respect for their disbelief than I do for unthought out belief of those who claim to believe as I.

    I believe not just because the Bible tells me so. I believe because of what I observe in others, and I believe because of what I have experienced. If not for that, I would not believe what the Bible has to say, just like you…okay just like you is crap, but I still wouldn’t believe. Smile that last part was a joke.

  150. In your long career, did you take an equally strong stance against teaching “Marxist biology” as you did creationism? I think it was evolutionary biologist and Stalin fan JBS Haldane who sought to fuse Marxist analysis with a hard empirical science.

    Wasn’t Carl Sagan wrong about the damage that Kuwaiti oil fires would do? Didn’t he “cook the books” in theorizing nuclear winter as a political vehicle to win public support for nuclear disarmament? I agree that nuclear war, even using one or two, would be be catastrophic. But it didn’t necessarily follow that only nuclear disarmament could prevent nuclear war especially with a totalitarian, nightmare state such as the Soviet Union that had a long history of breaking promises and treaties. Without nuclear weapons, a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could still have broken out in Europe.

    By repeatedly attacking deterrence, a sound and stable defensive policy that actually kept the peace, do you think Sagan and other nuclear disarmament advocates might have opened the door to an alternative ? Not disarmament but Bush/Cheney/Bill O’Reilly pre-emptive war, get them before they have a chance to get us.

  151. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. “consumerism is the new religion”

  152. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. “consumerism is the new religion”

  153. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. consumerism is the new religion- in generic or otherwise..it’s your belief whether you understand the concept or not

  154. You are right Kev, you can’t argue with a insane person!

  155. He’s not insane..getting through is impossible..post modernism today is all about the individual and their beliefs and how ardent they are to them thus I have come to the conclusion it is a generic form of religious belief system without God as supreme and the individual is God in essence

  156. Reason over Religion is indicative of post modern- belief that Science will answer all of mans ills..it can’t..Science has been wrong on numerous things in the past and corrected. scientists used to believe the earth was flat..they didn’t discover Pluto until the 19th century and yet the sumerians knew it existed in their wall art and calendars.

Leave a Comment