Earth’s Best Star Trek Signs From The March For Science

(Photo: Twitter/ChrisAguirre180)

Today on Earth Day, thousands of people around the world took to the streets to show their support for science, reason and logic in what organizers have dubbed the March for Science. Not surprisingly, there were a lot of fans who used their love of Star Trek to demonstrate their support for science.  TrekMovie has gathered some of the best expressions of science and Trek coming together from across the globe.

Seattle, WA (Photo: Twitter/SciMarchSeattle)

Albany, New York (photo: Instagram/teasyroosevelt)

Aukland, New Zealand (Photo: Twitter/RedShirt232)

Boston, MA (Photo: Instagram/theodoric24)

Boston, MA (Photo: Instagram/whalermeg)

Chicago, IL (Photo: Twitter/DaneYoshida)

Colorado Springs, CO (Photo: Instagram/raindeerbear)

Dallas, TX (Photo: Twitter/_fstop)

Washington, DC (Photo: Instagram/browncoat84)

Washington, DC (Photo: Instagram/shushagen)

Houston, TX (Photo: Twitter/Omegasign)

Los Angeles, CA (Photo: Twitter/KalElBogdanov)

Long Beach, CA (Photo: Twitter/ThePleiades1)

Boston, MA (Photo: Twitter/sky_r_squared)

Portland, OR (Photo: Twitter/thispdxgirl)

San Francisco, CA (Photo: Instagram/kobrien01)

San Francisco, CA (Photo: Instagram/musicricky)

Vienna, Austria (Photo: Twitter/merianelion)

Atlanta, GA (Photo: Instagram/jrshartou)

Bonus Celebrity sighting: Picardo in DC

As a board member for the Planetary Society, of course Star Trek: Voyager’s Robert Picardo was all over the March for Science. He braved the bad weather in Washington, DC to show his support.

Robert Picardo in Washington, DC (Photo: Twitter/robertpicardo)

Keep up with all the latest on events at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As a Trekkie with two real science degrees (and working as an Engineer) I must say I find this whole march insulting and downright frightening. If you don’t vote my way, you must be anti science? Give me a break. Note half the posters aren’t even about science but social commentary. Funny how we can be so “pro-science” while rejecting real economic realities like a massive debt with less and less to show for it. Another phony culture war protest to distract from our economic decline.

It’s not about how people voted, rather it’s about specific anti science positions that this administration has taken.

No its about if you don’t agree with our liberal views regarding science, your wrong. How very un-IDIC of you.

you’re = you are

The “liberal” view of science is to believe science, to understand how science is conducted and give it more weight than superstition.

That is pretty much never controversial in a doctor’s office, so why is it controversial elsewhere?

Odd you mention that since most of those against vaccinations I have met are of the liberal persuasion. There are science advocates on both sides and science deniers on both sides. Don’t be so binary in your thinking.

We don’t have “liberal views about” science. We have SCIENCE, PERIOD. We have FACTS. The conservative and Republican positions are anti-science and anti-factual, especially on climate change.
They are also anti-science FUNDING.

Well, we have ‘facts’ until they are no longer ‘facts’. I, for one, believe the preponderance of evidence of most situations. However, there is no evidence that I can provide to anyone that I love my mother, other than the basic hugs, “I love you’s”, etc., which can also be performed on a stranger that I do not love, and yet I do completely. That is without any doubt a fact…to me…but only a fact to the public if they consider trusting me at my word. Facts are Faith and vice-versa. Again, that’s only my fact…err….opinion. 😁

Remember how an entire human organ was lost for 100 years (and just recently rediscovered) because one doctor a century ago asserted ‘facts’ and no one challenged it? Declaring that the discussion is closed and the current beliefs are infallible isn’t science, and refusing to engage in a discussion on challenges to current theories (instead shouting down disagreement as ‘deniers’) is contrary to scientific method.

Zarm R’keeg,

Re: Disagreement

In science, there is no disagreement when those that attempt refutation provide no evidence that meets the falsifiability that all current working theories of science have. And those believing they have a better explanation for new observations, that the current theory doesn’t explain, have to provide a falsifiable theory for a scientific discussion to be engaged.

And when such evidence is provided, and then dismissed because it challenges culturally-established theory?

The positions that this “administration has taken” WERE positions that “this CAMPAIGN had taken” BEFORE that. Given that the campaign was publicly advocating and taking the same positions, IT IS about how you voted.

What’s more frightening to you? These people marching or the president calling global warming a concept created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive?

these people marching, who say the “discussion on climate change is over” frighten me more. they worship celebrity and believe wholesale anything they say about the issue.

How does a person who works in a lab all day worship celebrity? Where do you get these ideas?

The people marching.

Tens of thousands marched for science in more than 600 cities on six continents…. but to you, that is more frightening than the president’s belligerent ignorance of “It’s a Chinese hoax!!!!11”

The Vulcans would be ashamed of you.

The Vulcans would have plenty of company. More to the point who is paying for and organizing this march or indeed any of the protests of recent months?

Believe it or not there are plenty of people willing to speak up for the wellbeing of our country and planet for free.

I have quite a few friends who participated in the march… they did so of their own volition and amazingly enough, were not paid.

Oh Merchant of Vulcan… get out of your bubble. Why are you even a fan of this fictional universe? The cool laser beams and space ships? How have you completely missed the philosophy?

Marching doesn’t cost anything.

They’re being organized at the local level by folks who have skill in such things. Timing and such was organized by people nationally/Internationally who simply engaged. And the people are going on their own dime…because they *believe* that the future is worth the effort.

It makes sense to them because that’s where they get their info, reality TV stars…

If you bothered to read beyond the headlines, you would know that Trump was speaking about how existing Federal environmental policies has handicapped the American economy, even to the point of making certain aspects of the energy sector expensive, on purpose, in order to allow “green energy” competitive. That’s not “science”. In fact, the EPA and the Dept. of Energy has been de-commissioning hydro-electricity generation sites on one hand, while moving the goal-post of what constitutes as “clean coal” to the point of making the use of coal prohibitively expensive, as a means of making solar and wind generation competitive. This is on top of the fact that there is no mechanism to get Russia, China and India into an agreement that would prevent them from having a competitive advantage on the US. So, on that basis, the environmental movement is a “scam”.

And this is on top of the fact that the organizers of this thing lack a scientific background, and are using this for propaganda purposes, just like all the of “March for [INSERT WORD HERE]” marches, which are nothing more than political theatrics designed to organize anti-Trump sentiment. And for the record, I didn’t vote for Trump (Gary Johnson voter here), so I have ZERO stake in this debate.

No matter who you voted for, you have everything at stake. Rising sea levels, pollutants, pesticides,investment in medical research, these all effect your future.

They ‘all’ affect his future is a bit of a blanket statement. I mean, if he’s 90 and posting on this site, to be honest, the climate problems do not affect him in the slightest.

Mike McMannes,

Re: 90

Unless he lives to a quarter of a century beyond which is within the realm of possibility.

What’s Aleppo?

Oil and natural gas get government subsidies, so the idea that energy is being made expensive is absurd. But you are right in that those policies are not science, they are government and economics responding to science. Fossil fuels are or costly, but that cost isn’t simply in dollars spent at the pump. The cost includes long term damage to our environment, crop failures, more violent storms that damage communities and infrastructure. But the people who profit from selling oil and natural gas don’t pay those costs, you and I do. That is unfair advantage over solar and wind, which don’t create those long-term costs.

Fossil fuels are going to run out. That’s also science, but I hope it’s science that even you can believe. Perhaps you don’t care about that because you assume you won’t be alive to see it. That’s incredibly selfish of you. I surely hope you don’t have kids, because that attitude shows that you don’t care about them, or about their kids.

The “tea partiers” who marched on Washington showed themselves extremely ignorant of tax policy and a number of other factors of government. Did you accuse them of being paid for? Did you talk about how they lacked the proper background and were used for propaganda purposes?

THANK YOU msem315. What I would’ve said!

Obviously you are much more erudite than the person you say you understand. He can’t speak in complete sentences unless someone writes it for him to read, which he isn’t all that great at either. Personally, I think you must have been reading other things that interpret his so-called speeches because there is nothing in what he says that sounds anything like what you wrote. Besides, if he said it then he will change his mind tomorrow. He doesn’t deserve the credit you attribute to him.

As a Trekkie with a up-to-date medical degree (and an engineering one for college), I fully support the whole march. I understand the economic realities we face, but notice how the proposed budget makes massive 18% to DHHS (which includes the NIH which funds important grants/start-up medical research) while simultaneously making 8-9% increase for defense purposes, as well as building a wall that will not work.

How is that congruent with reality?

And before you respond, please don’t give me that nonsense of “let private enterprises do the research and innovation.” Earl Bakken was able to develop the first temporary pacemaker with a metronome back in the 1950s and eventually founded Medtronic, but that was the 1950s. To make effective clinical therapies nowadays you need resources to run basic molecular biology lab or some animal lab/tech lab for device development, and eventually costly clinical trials to prove that it works. That’s not something a scientist/physician with a great idea can just conjure up in his/her garage and bring it to fruition – and even then, they are likely going to aim for a K-grant to really jump start their research (and maybe at some point a private enterprise will take notice and continue funding it). And thanks to this new budget proposal, the already-strapped NIH is going to have even more trouble funding worthwhile stuff.

And I hope we don’t experience a biological enemy, natural or man-made, because they’re cutting funding that could research a defense against such a thing.

On another sad note, this Administration has put on a hiring freeze at the VA — so if the troops they supposedly “support” need medical care, well, let’s hope it’s not urgent.

I should also point out the “real economic reality” when our sea level rises to a point where certain coastal cities are no long sustainable and puts us further into debt.

And what is it? 40% of the population of the earth live within 100km of a coast? How many people are going to have to relocate?

Buy your waterfront property in Nebraska today!

Economic science tells us, that the debt always equals the wealth (for every dollar of debt there is a creditor). So a country with more debt is more wealthy (which of course doesn’t say anything about the distribution of debt and wealth). People should really be taught more science.

Virtue signalling, get your virtue signalling here!

In seriousness, I have to agree that the amount of dichotomous politics is really the core of the problem. The “you’re either with me or against me” philosophy is so dangerous because i know loads of people that may agree with half the things these marchers agree with but not the other half. The worst part is that the same groups of people that decry hate and fear mongering by “the other side” will immediately do it themselves when someone doesn’t agree with them. Just a look down the comments demonstrates that.

Amen fam!


I think just a look at facts belies about 90% of the science and economic and budgeting positions held by the party in power.

these are the same people who say sex is a social construct.

And race.

Race is a social construct or else all cultures would be exactly the same in how they react to it.

To a degree, sex is a social construct. Why do women wear makeup but not men? Why do women wear dresses, but not men? Why can men go shirtless at the beach but women cannot? Why do men wear ties and women don’t?

Basic anatomy gives no direct rationale for these things.

Sex is genetics: XX = female; XY = male, etc.. Gender is the social construct: the whole “putting on make up and/or thinking your ability to grow facial hair makes you an authority on anything” thing. If you are going to dismiss social science, you should at least get your inflammatory rhetoric straight.

Perhaps you should pay attention to whom those votes go to, and what those votes represent, because the current administration has been quite “anit-science” indeed.

No breaks given here, I’m afraid.

Spot on. The whole affair appeared to resonate with a definite cult-like atmosphere complete with charismatic leadership, strong devotion to a specific set of ideals and intense, irrational resistance to any challenge of those ideals. And as far as the debt is concerned, one is never likely to hear (for some strange reason) about the nine trillion racked up by Mr. Obama.

That might be because people who pay attention know that it is quite silly to attribute the national debt to a single president, let alone one who took office in the midst of a recession and financial crisis.

Not so strange after all….

To be fair Mr. Bush did his part with a 5 trillion contribution to the national debt.

You’re starting to be fair…. but no single president can be held responsible for a national economy. It is worth knowing that in the United States, for example, the budget is first decided by the House of Representatives and all spending must originate from that body. Blaming or praising the executive branch is grossly simplistic.

Are you discussing the march, or a Trump rally?

Much of the 9 trillion racked up by Obama was because of reduced tax receipts from the great recession and stimulus spent to pull us out of the recession so didn’t become a depression. That is very different from money spent on a costly and ineffective wall as monument to Donald Trump.

Here’s the only economic reality you need to know Cmd Bremmon: climate change will cost our civilization incredible sums of money. Do you have any idea how much money exists in New York? Now can you imagine all of it underwater? Climate change is really f-ing expensive. There is literally only one thing to do about it: remove fossil fuels from the economy. If we can do that, we can solve our problem. The investment would be many times less than the cost of doing nothing. Moreover, the earlier we start adapting to our new reality, the greater the payoff. Businesses and governments everywhere understand and use climate science every day to plan for the future and make investments. Many of them, including Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc have pledged to go 100% renewable, because they know the only sound investment to make is in a future that hasn’t been decimated by climate change. I know where I’m putting my money.

I call straw man and gross over generalization fallcies. I also just looked at the BEA’s site to confirm it, but we aren’t in economic decline, haven’t been since 2011. And the national debt is shrinking.

Spot on sir!

Our economic decline has just begun, where have you been the last eight years?

Well said Cmd. Bremmon. Climate change is not just a hoax, it’s a money-making scheme of vast proportions. I’m not talking about whether the climate is changing. It may or may not be – I’m an engineer working for the environment for the last three decades, but I’m not a climate scientist. No, I’m talking about how the religion of ‘Climate Change’ has been used to reverse decades of environmentalism (actual environmentalism where air and water are cleaned up and natural resources are conserved, not made-up crap about carbon footprints) and has been use to make hundreds of billions for certain companies. Trump was completely wrong about China, though. It starts in Europe, and especially in Germany. But just about anyone can make money from it if they want. By the 1990s Volkswagen (they of the fake emissions data scandal) convinced the German federal Environment Ministry to promote the propagation of diesel cars over gasoline an electric. Why? Diesel engines are 30% more efficient than gasoline engines and therefore produce less CO2 per mile. But 4,000 more Germans die each year because of the carcinogenic components of diesel exhaust. Who cares? The billions VW and DB had to pay are a tiny fraction of the profits made from killing those people. VW also successfully lobbied against the propagation of electric vehicles because diesel was a more attractive ‘environmental’ alternative. I bullsh-t you not. A decade ago Germany started investing huge sums in solar photovoltaic capacity. Tens of gigawatts. At the cost of hundreds of billions. In a country where most areas get only 900-1000 hours of sun a year – a third of what sunny desert places get. Intermediate results: Residential utility bills skyrocketed, and massive amounts of energy from fossil fuel plants had to be used to ‘balance’ the ridiculous solar PV, i.e., provide electricity the other 7800 hours annually. However, since natural gas plants couldn’t get enough hours of operation to justify their continued operation (losing 1,000 hours/year to solar) they had to close down (same thing has happened already in California, by the way) and Germany had to start importing dirty coal electricity from Poland. Final results: A 3% INCREASE in CO2 emissions. Who cares? Not a scam? Vast – unimaginably vast – tracts of tropical rainforests have been destroyed in order to grow ‘crops’ for biofuels for Europe, eliminating tremendous portions of the earth’s ‘green lungs’. What’s happened in Germany is a microcosm of what could happen in every other country. The majority of arable farmland given over to growing canola for biodiesel, causing food to be imported from farther and farther away, as long it’s available and not replaced by oil crops, all because of the bizarro idea that ‘this year’s carbon’ is OK to burn. Home heating from wood instead of clean natural gas, giving rise to respiratory disease and higher mortality , all because of the bizarro idea that ‘this year’s carbon’ is OK to burn. Germany shuttered all of its coal plants, including the cleanest plants that had been retrofitted at a cost of billions to reduce actual air pollution. Instead, it imports electricity at night, on cloudy days, in other words 85% of the hours of the year, from the east, where coal is not clean and billions were not spent on retrofits. So air pollution continues to increase but the winds blow from west to east so who cares? This isn’t science. It’s crap. 97% of climate scientists are not climate scientists. With very rare exceptions, these are people who have degrees in something else. Check it out, I’m not kidding. They don’t have degrees or academic background in anything close to something now called climate science. And apparently not in a discipline where people understand the difference between correlation and causation. Meanwhile, in Europe, the use of genetically modified food crops is banned. Despite what all known scientific evidence tells them. So all of a sudden science isn’t so important when it contradicts your political positions. Oh, and do you remember how much Europe hated George W Bush because of his position on ‘climate change’? Under Bush’s presidency, the US was the only major country in which CO2 emissions declined. Only the renewed popularity of SUVs in California after the price of oil fell caused emissions to turn around and increase. The hatred for Bush, like for Trump, was 100% political. Y’know how some ignorant Republicans in Congress attacked Obama for a couple of failed loan guarantees for renewable energy companies? Hysterically funny. That was a program of the George W Bush administration, for which congressional republicans blamed Obama and everyone else credited Obama. Obama’s contribution to the environment was refusing to extend the Investment Tax Credit beyond 2016 for solar for several years, killing a lot of cutting-edge… Read more »

So sad this is all wrong or misleading, but don’t believe it’s worth refuting all your points. I respect that you disagree with the weight of evidence, but that’s why it’s nothing more than your opinion. You’re not an expert and shouldn’t be listened to as such. To call climate research a load of baloney is like me walking into your job and telling you everything you’re doing and your entire business model is wrong. It’s completely insulting. These scientists are doing their jobs to help people. Your internet comment isn’t going to undo centuries of data and obvious conclusions.

You are wrong and I won’t say why and also you aren’t an expert and everyone agrees with me!

YES, DAMMIT, IF YOU DIDN’T VOTE MY WAY, THEN YOU ARE anti-science, because YOU ARE ENABLING the leaders who are ATTACKING AND CUTTING *SCIENCE* funding. That’s what “anti”- MEANS, if you also got some reading comprehension to go with your science degrees. ALSO, if you didn’t vote my way, you’re a hareful dumbass racist and homophobe.

I don’t care about your politics unless you think defunding public research is good for the country.

Bravo, Cmdr. A true cultural interest in science (rather than pop science) would be a little more interested in engaging in scientific debate and either answering scientific challenges to theories or changing the theories in light of unanswerable challenges (actual science), rather than declaring all popular cultural beliefs as ‘science’ and shouting down any who dissent. That isn’t science, that’s dogma- the enemy of science.

The fact that there are people who like Star Trek while supporting policies based in rejecting the findings of scientists is fascinating. It is a testament to the human psychological ability to compartmentalize things we don’t want to face.

It’s not about data, it’s about interpretations of data. Yes, the climate may be changing, as it has changed many times before. However, the exact nature of those changes is uncertain and debatable. For one, temperatures today are still much lower than it was during medieval times (“medieval climate optimum”). For two, many “data” used by warming activists are tainted; as cities grow big, they also grow hot (urban heat island effect – something that wasn’t even explored until recently!), which in turn influences the long-term measures taken in and around those cities. For three, the periodical ice age is long overdue, certainly longer than it should if the climate change was caused by humans. For four, we have barely idea about the scope of climate changes in the past, because weather recording during previous centuries was limited to the so-called civilized world; what we know about weather in the past is only just scratching the surface.

If I learned something from Star Trek, it was this: do not let suspicions and anecdotal data cloud your judgement, as things are often the exact opposite of what they seem.
And also, Space Hippies are seldom right.

@Paul, without debating the validity of your “facts”, regardless, do you think it’s appropriate then to disband the organizations that collect the data, thus having no facts from which to make interpretations? Because whatever side of the debate on which you may land, that is what the current administration is doing. Indeed they have proposed turning off a camera on a satellite which accomplishes nothing more than turning a blind eye to the issue — it certainly doesn’t save any money.

, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I agree with the science. My complaint about the global warming activists is that their efforts would simply cripple the US economy while China (planning to open one new coal plant each week in 2020) and India (still cranking out new coal plants until at least 2022) go on at full speed without a care in (or for) the world. Come up with a plan where China, India and the developing world have to do their fair share, and I’ll support you. Such plans are nonexistent now and new proposals are vanishingly unlikely to succeed in communist China or disastrously overcrowded India.

China is going to dominate the renewable energy industry. True, they have a politically powerful coal industry, but that does not mean that we should not act and lead by example.

What example do we set for the world when our economy collapses under the weight of self-imposed environmental regulations that our primary competitors are completely ignoring?

And “dominating the renewable energy industry” only means that 5% of China’s energy needs will be met by renewables instead of 3% everywhere else. Meanwhile, more and more coal plants are coming online over there.

What you are not considering is the upcoming paradigm shift that will inevitably take place; the green industrial revolution if you will. We need mandatory environment education in this country in order to ready the future’s workforce for it. The sun is free, the wind is free, the economics are scaling. You have to stop thinking short term. This is going to take place regardless of what you and I say.

Ditto RikersMailbox. Fact is Thorny, the clean energy revolution is already here. Prices for solar energy tumbled last year to record lows, while record high numbers of solar panels went up. Clean energy is cost competitive with fossil fuel. It is WAY beyond a political issue at this point; this is about simple economics, and beyond that morals. Also your argument of “where’s the plan for China” holds no water. The longer we delay adapting our economy, the more excuses they have to delay. SOMEONE needs to lead. Right now that leader is China. They’re investing in clean energy while we’re investing billions of defense dollars into warplanes that don’t even work. You tell me which one sounds like a smarter move.


“Meanwhile, more and more coal plants are coming online over there.”

Where did you get that, Fox News? Because that is NOT true. China is doing quite the opposite.


China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity

The announcement, made by China’s National Energy Administration, cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity. That includes dozens of projects in 13 provinces, mostly in China’s coal-rich north and west, on which construction had already begun. Those projects alone would have had a combined output of 54 gigawatts, more than the entire coal-fired capacity of Germany, according to figures compiled by Greenpeace.

Beijing’s last large coal-fired power plant suspends operations

The Huaneng Beijing Thermal Power Plant was built up and put into operation in June 1999. It has five coal-fired units with a total installed capacity of 845,000 kilowatts and heating capacity of 26 million square meters.

Du Chengzhang, general manager of the plant, said it is an efficient and environmental friendly plant with advanced emission treatment equipment. The plant has provided important support to the stable operation of Beijing’s electric power system and the heat-supply system.

After the suspension of the plant, about 1.76 million tonnes of coal, 91 tonnes of sulfur dioxide and 285 tonnes of nitrogen oxide emissions will be cut annually. According to a clean air plan by Beijing from 2013 to 2017, Beijing will build four gas thermal power centers and shut down the four large coal-fueled thermal power plants during the period.

China May Be Building $500 Billion Worth of Unnecessary Coal Plants
Scott Cendrowski
Nov 27, 2016
China could be throwing away as much as $490 billion building coal-fired power plants it doesn’t need, according to a new study.
Even as China had 895 gigawatts of existing coal generating capacity, by this summer only half of it was being used. Yet the country has another 205 gigawatts under construction and even more planned, says London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative, which released the study. Carbon Tracker argues that China’s slowing demand for electricity as it moves away from heavy industry should obviate the need for more coal plants.

Why Is China Still Building New Coal Plants?
April 18th, 2016 by Guest Contributor

By Jeremy Deaton

There have been mixed messages coming from China lately. The country’s carbon emissions may be declining more than a decade earlier than anticipated, thanks in part to reductions in coal power. And yet, China is planning 210 new coal-fired power plants despite existing overcapacity. Why?

So they are still building 107 new coal plants, but canceled 103, and those because of overcapacity, not environmental concerns. Hooray for China.

Thorny why are you so cynical of this welcome development? We should be celebrating the fact that coal is dying its long overdue death. China is on track to meet its emissions goals YEARS ahead of schedule. It is rapidly changing course on energy policy, mainly because its cities are horribly polluted and its citizens are suffering. It isn’t afraid to admit it has a carbon problem, that’s why it spends DOUBLE what the US invests in clean energy every year. China is quickly becoming the clean energy superpower of the world, while Trump and his cronies are trying to bring back 19th century fuels like coal, which is now more expensive than clean energy.

Clean energy employs ten times as many Americans as dirty energy. That’s why Trump’s policies make no rational sense. If he was less concerned with lining millionaires’ pockets and more concerned with putting honest Americans back to work, we would all have good paying jobs that fortify the American economy for the 21st century. But rationality sometimes gets overlooked in the face of ideology.

I’m pretty sure they’re trolls that scour the internet for any opportunity to scream about how great Trump is and how the snowflakes are incompetent.

There are tiers of Trekdom. Obviously anyone who supports the various anti-science/anti-alternitive energy is just a casual fan. No true Trekker would do that.

Lia, no true scotsmen.

Or, as my namesake has said before:
“Problem: Earth technology and science have progressed faster than political and social knowledge. Purpose of mission: to prevent Earth’s civilization from destroying itself before it can mature into a peaceful society.”

Taxation is theft.


Re: Taxation is theft.

In the US, how can this be possibly so when the taxes are paid with money that the goverment printed in the first place to pay its debts? Inflation through excessive printing of money to render a revolution’s debts worthless which Benjamin Franklin perfected — now THAT’S theft!

@ Disinvited…
I made a post in this thread, got the dreaded “Comment Awaiting Moderation”, if it disappears or doesn’t show up in 24 hours, I know I’m being censored.

Well, I posted as L-o-n-e-B-r-o-w-n-c-o-a-t 2 days ago and still it has been censored or not showed up after 24 hours, good thing I saved it in notepad;
Well, whenever this argument raises its’ ugly head, I just ask the screamers….
Do you know what the Pliocene is? Cenozoic? because above 70°N during those times it was 22°C warmer.

If this disappears, I’ll try another way, I will not be silenced.


Re: …being censored.

“Richard/LoneBrowncoat” there’s your problem:

“If we are alerted to something we deem inappropriate in any way (this includes but it not limited to: hara$$ing other commenters, TRYING TO POST AS TWO DIFFERENT NAMES IN THE SAME COMMENT CHAIN, and/or repeated uses of inappropriate language), we may delete it at our discretion.” —

Re: Pliocene? Cenozoic?

I’m not sure where you are going with that? The Cenozoic is the current era which started 65 million years ago – we are still in it. The Pliocene was an epoch of global cooling which lasted from 5.2 to 1.64 million years ago which heralded the extinction of many mammals and the rise of homo.

Are you trying to equate the current catastrophic rise in global temperature to the gradual epochal change of the Pliocene?

I almost didn’t reply, this board is very frustrating, plus


The Pliocene is part of the Cenozoic “The Cenozoic spans only about 65 million years, from the end of the Cretaceous Period and the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs to the present. The Cenozoic is sometimes called the Age of Mammals, because the largest land animals have been mammals during that time.” More exactly, it lies within the Neogene portion, my point was to express that its much more natural that the Earth be warmer.
There were huge deciduous forests at what now is barren Arctic tundra, that the ice caps are actually the anomaly. However, if you are looking up references, note that there were many factors, continental drift, solar activity [relatively calm now] as well as variances in our planet’s elliptical orbit and so on…. “The Pliocene lasted from 5.333 to 2.58 million years ago. The Pliocene featured dramatic climactic changes, which ultimately led to modern species and plants. The Mediterranean Sea dried up for several million years. Along with these major geological events, Australopithecus evolved in Africa, beginning the human branch. The isthmus of Panama formed, and animals migrated between North and South America, wreaking havoc on the local ecology. Climatic changes brought savannas that are still continuing to spread across the world, Indian monsoons, deserts in East Asia, and the beginnings of the
Sahara desert. The earth’s continents and seas moved into their present shapes. The world map has not changed much since, save for changes brought about by the glaciations of the Quaternary, such as the Great Lakes.[15][16]”
“The Quaternary spans from 2.58 million years ago to present day, and is the shortest geological period in the Phanerozoic Eon. It features modern animals, and dramatic changes in the climate. It is divided into two epochs: the Pleistocene and the Holocene.” and so on….

ENOUGH! I’m blocked by I.P. requiring to jump through a couple of hoops to get around that, like going through another portal. This is my last post on this matter, wasted too much time when I’ve got other places to be. LB is my preferred moniker, this and YT are the only places I revert to Richard because Google plus frelled up the accounts I had before the takeover. is the only place I post under my real name, but since that is about ATSC and Over-The-Air TV, it doesn’t really matter much.

Oops…there’s a couple of typos, no edit button here.


Re: … my point was to express that its much more natural that the Earth be warmer.

Again, you are unclear on the criteria that you are using for this “much more natural” observation. Since the creation of the solar system, just what exactly is you observational criteria for what is the “much more natural” state for the planet?

I could just as well observe that in the past it was much more natural for the Earth’s atmosphere to contain little to no oxygen. It is illogical to conclude that therefore the human race does not need to concern itself with ensuring the planet’s oxygen cycle is maintained for continued survival.

Also, “The Pliocene featured dramatic climactic changes” is addressing climate changes on geologic scales of time, not the catastrophic climate changes observable in human lifetimes with whicht global warming science is concerned. Global warming science is more akin to the catastrophic climate change science of nuclear winter’s aftermath or the weather change event which drove the dinosaurs from their dominance of the land and sea.

I suppose you could say that in the grand order of the scheme of things in the universe that catastrophes are “natural”, but we humans, in our brief time upon this orb, have found that they are best to be avoided if at all humanly possible.

Well, with my original post, responding to a conversation much earlier, that many of the marchers are unaware of the varying ages of the Earth and that it used to be much warmer and are there for the climate change bandwagon.

This happened when I tried to follow your URL……….


Hmmm…you probably need some https certificate management. Try http:

Yes, inflation is a hidden tax – the income tax and all the other taxes that we are being destroyed with/by are out in the open. It’s why the 1913 dollar (when we got the Federal Reserve (our central bank)) is now worth about 4 cents.

You live in a society. Taxes are the price you pay for civilization.
Welcome to post-hunting and gathering…

Okay then you can go pave your own roads and put out your own fires and use your own medicine at your own hospital and teach your own children and live in your own cave. The rest of us live in a society. That society needs money to work properly.

Yes, because a road is such a complicated thing that only a government could make one. You might want to read The Law, by Frédéric Bastiat. You will then recognize what he calls Legal Plunder – the m.o. of all governments.

“The state is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Bastiat

That’s fine man, you wanna build your own roads? More power to ya. Stay off my roads then if you’re not gonna pay for them. I don’t think you’ve ever built a road in your life, so I doubt you know how much they cost. Just think, without taxes, the free market can build the roads! Wouldn’t it be great having roads that go directly to the factory plants in company towns, and no roads leading to libraries, schools, churches and hospitals? After all, who would build that? Sounds like a real great way to design a community!

Trump’s infrastructure program …
Give tax breaks to companies to build roads.
The roads will be toll roads, profits reverting to the companies.
Taxpayers will pay twice to use those roads. Annnnd the poor people lose again! But Trump seems to think they’re “losers” anyways.

It’s really a shame that science has become a partisan issue. I wouldn’t say that the US was ever really “logical”, but there was a period from the end of WWII up until around 2001, when political conservatives believed in and even supported science. Maybe their support was always contingent upon science as a means of shoring up national defense, and after the USSR dissolved, they no longer saw any value in science. Or, maybe it was because the Christian Conservatives got so much control over the Republican Party that elected officials of that party had to toe the line and be anti-science. Perhaps it was a combination of both. Whatever the cause, I wish I could say that a resolution was at hand. But, I honestly don’t see any reason for the Republican Party to become any less anti-science any time soon. Of course, I’m in favor of marching for science. I’m just not sure what good it does. I can’t help but think that it’s largely an exercise of preaching to the choir. I hope that I’m wrong.

Conservatives are not anti-science. They are anti- certain beliefs in science and anti- government funding of some science. The core of why conservatives have resisted certain elements of science is a combination of cost and the fact that in the latter half of the 20th century, large amounts of people turned science into a religious entity that can never be criticized or one faces excommunication. I know a lot of conservatives and virtually none of them are anti-science. Its a buzzword to demonize opposition rather than address real concerns.

Please explain “anti-certain beliefs in science”. What does that mean exactly?

I loathe basic pro- and anti- terms because they remove the nuance and variations in opinion and reduces complex opinions down to easy to demonize positions.

Conservatives by and large (from my experience) support science, they just don’t agree with certain things and are skeptical with some of it. I have known deeply conservative Christians who also work at NASA and work to further scientific achievement my whole life. If you only look at everything from a very basic position, that would seem nonsensical but once you meet the people, its easy to see why they have the views they have because you are looking at their complex beliefs rather than easy to demonize stereotypes of that position.

TerranGuy93, forgive me, but I don’t understand what you mean. Nuance and variation are already baked into scientific theory. It’s why there’s ‘degree of variability’ and ‘probability’. This has nothing to do with ‘opinion’. There are no ‘complex opinions’, only interpretation of data. I also don’t know what you mean by ‘very basic positions’ and ‘complex beliefs’. Quantify please.

If you don’t think opinion and bias exist in science, I really have no idea what to tell you. Humans have innate bias and opinions that influence how and what they study as well as how they interpret and present data. This in turn affects how the general public interpret the data and understand the science.

As for complex opinion and very basic positions, I was referring to the general populations. Humans have a tendency towards oversimplifying complex opinions (go to a dictionary and look up complex) and then demonizing that oversimplification such as labeling people as “anti-science.”

Science should be devoid of bias, opinion, and manipulation but since science involves people, it never will be because humans always have these things.

It says a lot about the state of the Republican party that only 9% of scientists identify as Republican, compared to 55% saying they’re Democrat. Conservatism is opposed to change, but science is about embracing the unknown and being open to understanding it, which requires change. Thankfully Cygnus the Republican party is actually finally coming around on climate science. Just last month a bipartisan committee spoke to Congress about the need to act. The Republican party is populated by old white men, but they’re not gonna be around for much longer; the millennials are coming, and we all know abuot climate change. It’s gonna be a big difference when we’re in office.


This is a great macrocosm of what I was talking about.

First, that first interpretation of the data could easily be wrong. It is quite likely the reason so many scientist do not identify as Republicans might have to do with possible consequences of coming out as Conservative.

Second, Conservatives don’t simply “oppose change”, they oppose *some* changes and prefer slower change. All change is not good by default.

Finally, the idea that millenials will soon be in power (as a millenial) is terrifying. So many millenials have very cursory understanding of the things they support and are far too prone to supporting what is trendy at the moment.

Its also important to note that the generation following the millenials is not liberal but increasingly conservative. So the glorious revolution has a bit of a snag with it.

That would actually be a microcosm, not a macrocosm.
You say that conservatives by and large support science, but your representatives in Congress do not. They say things like, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.” This tells me that they lack scientific literacy, as they don’t understand what a scientific theory is. It does not mean “guess”. I would have more respect for them if they simply said, “We understand that atmospheric accumulation of carbon is warming the Earth. The science is sound, but we don’t care and neither do our constituents.” Instead, they lie.


That is true, I mistype as I was on my phone, apologies.

They don’t lack scientific literacy, I guarantee you most of them do recognize what it means in context. They are however doing exactly what those on the left do when they scream “anti-science”, demonizing the opponent and playing to the lowest common denominator.

Conservatives are not saying climate change isn’t occurring, they disagree that man is causing it. This is the lefts problem right here. They deliberately oversimplify and obfuscate what the right says and then demonize it, pat themselves on the back for being so much “better” and look down on others.

Its what leads to idiots like Trump in office. He played to the people on the right sick of being talked down to by the left by spitting in their faces. You want people like Trump out of office? Stop misrepresenting the opposing side and yelling buzzwords at the them.

Gonna have to agree with Cygnus on this one TerranGuy. The thing is this: no one doubts the people in office are smart, so yes, they probably have scientific literacy. What they are is BOUGHT — bought by fossil fuel lobbyists that got them elected. And it should sicken you as much as it sickens me that these men who claim they represent us would sell us to fossil fuels to win an election. It’s disgusting and shameful.

As for your fear of millennials coming of age, I have news for you — we’re the most educated generation in American history. We’re the most well-connected generation in history. And you know what we didn’t do? We didn’t run train on Planet Earth and exhaust her resources at an unsustainable rate. We didn’t fill the world with plastic, destroy the ozone layer, and pave the rainforest. Nope, that wasn’t us. That was you. Seems to me like ANYONE would be less irresponsible than the generations now deciding my fate and the fate of countless generations to come. Selfish? I don’t think anyone over the age of 35 knows what selfishness is. If they did, they would probably do something about my future. Instead you’re still debating whether or not ciimate change is a problem. The rest of us are already working on it.

Oh my bad I didn’t see the whole (as a millennial) part, so hey at least you’re not to blame for the climate problem. But how does that song for old people go? We didn’t start the fire, it was always burning

Hey alabatrosity, there is no objective measurement of education so that is a dubious claim at best. From my experience with millennials, they support fighting climate change and know very little about it. They will blindly support policies they don’t understand and when the consequences come about, will blame everyone else and not themselves (same as every other generation.

Millennials are no different than every previous generation, they think themselves much smarter than they are and masturbate how wonderful they are and in 50 years, those same opinions you have on the supposed evils of the previous generations will be espoused by the new generation who think themselves much smarter than you. Its the circle of life.

Maybe! I’m not in a position to know. All I know is the older generations of this planet fecklessly ushered in an era of mass extinction and a new geological age. They treat the Earth like garbage and seem not to understand that we live here too. These older generations don’t care about the legacy they leave behind, because they won’t be around to see it. If there’s ANYTHING millennials should care about, it’s climate change, and for obvious reasons — we’re gonna live with it. As long as we’re fighting to stop it, I don’t really care whether or not we’re smarter than other generations. All I care about is that we live our lives differently, different than the example our forebears have shown us. Because nothing about their way of life makes sense. I’m ready for a new one, one based in science, one that won’t destroy this world. I want a future too.

In 50 years, once the fear mongering calms down and the world continues spinning same as it has done for millennia, the new generation will decry everything you fought and pushed for as dangerous and idiotic while championing their own goals as the true solution to the ills of the world. Why? Because this kind of thing happens every new generation and every time, the world keeps spinning because every generation eventually realizes what they thought was true wasn’t as true as they thought it was and a problem they perceived as the greatest threat to the human race wasn’t as bad as they thought. Every generation wants to feel it is the *special* generation, but they aren’t.

Actually there’s a pretty big difference between “every generation” and *this* generation. First of all, no other threat [aside from probably nuclear war] has ever been so pronounced and so intimately connected to science. It isn’t hard to see how nuclear bombs would destroy civilization. It also isn’t hard to see how climate change will too. The evidence is bare before us. This isn’t some “religion”, it’s written in all our scientific instruments — this is the temperature, this is what it used to be. We have all the knowledge we need and it’s PAINFULLY obvious what’s happening. Where do you live? I’d be happy to show you exactly how the climate has changed in your area within your lifetime. There’s a resource to do just that. The climate has changed, and we know why it’s changed. Anyone who denies it at this point is just that — a denier. And just like deniers of every other stripe, their voices will always remain a vanishing minority.

No, there isn’t. Every generation has been more connected and the major problem of their time has been far “worse” than the time prior with the acolytes out to tell everyone how they must believe or be cast aside as a heretic. It is dogmatic ideology and nothing this generation does will change it, nor will the next.

Just tell me where you live and I’ll show you, I’ll give you the chance to see things in a different light. After all, you’re a Trek fan, right? You’re brave enough to explore the unknown? Challenge yourself. Try it. Where do you live?

At no point have I disputed that climate change is real, why so desperate to phrase it as such?

I simply don’t agree with many of the proprosed solutions nor do I believe it is as severe as many of the fear mongerers claim it to be. I’m sure in your eyes that is denial because 80, 90, 95% isn’t 100%.

I’m glad you haven’t “disputed” climate change is real, not that you have any authority to do so anyway. The problem is that you presume to understand climate change as well as the people who actually study it. You think you have an opinion that’s on the same level objective reality as cold hard scientific data. Let me paint it in numbers you would understand: if there’s a 1% chance of a flood hitting your home, you’re gonna buy flood insurance. Why? Because losing your home to the one in a hundred chance of a flood is a big freaking loss and an enormous risk to take. It’s the same thing with climate change. Even if there’s a 1% chance that it’s gonna be as bad as the scientists all say it will, that’s a risk not worth taking. You’d be a fool not to prepare for it. Nothing is ever 100%. It doesn’t need to be to know it’s a problem worth acting on.

I am going to break this down into easy to understand paragraphs.

1) Studying a field does not in and of itself make people right about that field. Experts are wrong about things every day that average people are right about. Go look at traffic engineering as an easy example. Being right is not inherently connected to education and it is fallacious to dismiss criticism based solely on this point and something tells me what you mean by “experts” is really “experts that agree with me.”

2) That example is in no way accurate. If flood insurance is insanely expensive, I am certainly not going to buy it for a low chance of something catastrophic. That would be a waste of limited resources. I live in an area with flooding as a problem, we buy flood insurance because it is reasonably high of a chance with a low cost. The factors or cost and risk are core reasons as to why many people have varying opinions on this topic. Not every risk is worth the cost.

3) Your core problem is that you have bought into a dogmatic ideology and I would hedge pretty heavily you engage in confirmation bias when researching. It’s a great example of how the Left has basically the Religious Right of the 90s and if trends continue will follow their same path to relative failure in a decade.

That’s the thing though, the insurance isn’t that expensive; it’s insanely cheap. People who don’t understand the value of clean energy fail to account for how much better it will make us as a society. You know how much civilization costs? It’s a lot of money to sacrifice. You know how much clean energy costs? A tiny fraction of that, and adopting it would democratize energy generation [solar panels on houses], clean up the water supply and air we breathe, and make America energy independent. It’d be the shining example of what a people can do if they put their minds to it. This isn’t propaganda; this is pure rational fact and human decency. If you can avoid suffering, even if it seems expensive right now, isn’t that an investment worth making?

And I have to say you’re right that “experts” can be wrong all the time. The fact is however those “experts” who deny climate change are the slimmest minority of scientists, and their credibility is dubious. You’re a Trek fan, so presumably you’re a fan of NASA. You realize most of their budget isn’t spent on outer space, but on Earth? You realize a huge portion of its mission is to catalog and understand climate change? This isn’t some joke. This isn’t a conspiracy. This is reality and we need to live in it. No one benefits from sticking our heads in the sand when we could easily solve the problem today, right now, with current technology at reasonable cost. Why not?

The insurance is incredibly expensive. Green energy is not cheap, it isn’t anywhere near as effective as it would need to be and it has significant challenges. It has not caught on for that reason. It isn’t some evil conspiracy of oil barons all laughing in their boardrooms. Of course it sounds nice, anything sounds nice when you leave out all the problems, only focus on the supposed great things and then frame it as cheap against a massive looming cost that is theoretical. When clean energy is up to par, I will support it but I will not tell people to freeze in their homes in the winter because coal is bad and oh by the way, the technology to replace it is coming TBD. When the technology is here, I will be more than happy to embrace it but I will never support causing suffering which *will* happen to prevent suffering which *may* happen.

Firstly, science does not function via consensus so the “well they are a slim minority” is a ridiculous argument even given the fact that the actual statistics regarding consensus have some serious problems. As for the “experts”, what is your evidence they are a of dubious credibility? By your own logic, they are scientists and you are but a lowly commoner so why should you be allowed to decide who is legitimate and who isn’t?

Well, I live near NASA, lived with people who work near NASA, have been on sight numerous times, taught a person who worked with NASA, and have been surrounded by people from their my entire life. So yes, I have a fair amount of knowledge about NASA. I really like that logical leap that part of NASA’s job is to catalog and understand climate change so therefore it is a serious problem and we have the solution cheap, easy, ready to go and somehow its being stopped by what? Evil conspiracy? The opposition to it is *because* the solution is not easy, cheap, and ready to go. As for NASA’s job to study and catalog it, that does not immediately follow it is therefore man-made and catastrophic. Hell just a year ago, a relative of mine attended a talk about NASA and the climate change in which the role of how politics has played a part in how NASA has approached climate change was a prominent part. Politics does play a part in the operations at NASA, its why the Republicans are giving them more money because they like that science and why Democrats cut funding because they don’t like that science. Its why people who support the idea that climate change is the worst thing in the history of mankind want to defund, demonize, and silence anyone who dissents and then turn around and go “See, everyone agrees and those who don’t should be ignored!” If science were run by perfect people unencumbered by manipulation, it would be easy to see what is from what isn’t but we don’t live in that magical utopia and we never will because humans are flawed and want their own biases to be conformed not challenged.

I am aware that it isn’t a joke, I certainly am not laughing at the fear-mongering. I’m deeply concerned at the massive loss that will follow enacting some of the proposed “solutions.” I am also irritated at these kinds of protests because a lot of people involved act as though its just one side that pulls this crap and the other side is just so pro-science you wouldn’t believe. The truth is that people are hunky dory with science being ignored or manipulated, but only when it conforms to what they want. Now, are there people in the marches who genuinely want science to be clear of manipulation? Absolutely, but so long as humans are involved with science it will be manipulated by the biases and agendas that people innately have and deciding to become a scientist doesn’t suddenly purify a person from these innate characteristics.

Just because you’re cold and lonely and night doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening.

Sick burn [sarcasm], except I have not said that nor do i believe global warming isn’t happening.

Whoa, whoa, albatrosity, my generation was the one that woke up with Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” and saw the Cuyahoga River burning and witnessed the horrors of Love Canal. So we began defending Earth’s ecological balance. We insisted that the US government look to protecting the environment. We asked cities to institute recycling programs, and so on.

Unfortunately, during this same time, the food industry, Big Ag, and Fossil Fuels began using more and more natural resources, or polluting with plastics. For every one of us who is careful about our consumption of overpackaged food, factory-farmed animals,there is an industry advertising heavily to people who are too “busy” or just too damned tired to cook or go food shopping.

Marja you’re right, I don’t know what generation you’re part of but there have been ecologically-minded generations before mine. So I can’t paint in such broad strokes that “older generations” are responsible for climate change; you’re correct to point out that the fossil fuel industry is the main culprit. I just know that a lot of people my age feel cheated by our parents for a lot of things, like the Great Recession, student debt, all this stuff. We can’t blame you individually, but the world you built seems designed to fail on us. Throw climate change into the mix and it feels like you’re trying to oust us from this Earth. In my lifetime global temperatures are gonna go up several degrees, completely devastating the place I call home. As a Trek fan, you’ve seen The Inner Light I’m sure, and remember how sad Picard is to know his grandson “deserves a rich full life and he’s not gonna get one.” Well you’re him, and I’m the grandson. So yeah, I know there are those of you who care. There just didn’t seem to be enough for it to matter.


The Republican Party is anti-science. They don’t believe in climate change, they incessantly try to convince the public that climate change is a hoax, and they don’t believe in evolution by natural selection. During the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries, the entire field of candidates (except for Jon Huntsman, whom the rest of the field criticized as not conservative) famously raised their hands to show that they didn’t believe in evolution by natural selection, the most fundamental principle of biology. That’s anti-science, and it has nothing to do with “funding” or “government” or “rights” of any kind. And by their own self-definition, the Republican National Committee is a conservative organization. Therefore, there is an indisputable correlation between American conservatives and being anti-science.


No it isn’t. It believes in gravity, it believes in funding space exploration and it is filled with people that do believe in science. Those are not anti-science. Do they agree with every element of science you do? Probably not, that does not make them anti-science anymore than someone disliking one thing at a restaurant menu makes them anti-restaurant.

That kind of oversimplification and demonization is such a part of the problem. If you go into a discussion loaded with preconceived notions of what someone else thinks and yell they are wrong loudly, you are no better than the people you look down on.

There is not an indisputable correlation between American conservatives and being anti-science any more than there is an indisputable correlation between American liberals and being anti-reason. Both are oversimplifications of complex ideas that help no one. But hey, its a free country so join in the anti-conservative circle jerk, its much easier than actually trying to understand those with whom you disagree.


Science is not just a collection of established facts; science is a way of thinking, of discerning facts, called the Scientific Method. That conservatives might believe in certain effects of gravitation–and, really, how could anyone, even they, dispute the most obvious ones?–does not imply that they believe in the Scientific Method as a means of discerning facts over, say, reading the Bible. Conservatives might believe in certain effects of gravitation–like the obvious ones–while disbelieving in the effects (like relativistic effects) that require deductive reasoning to understand. And even their belief in the obvious effects of gravitation would not imply that they believe in those effects for scientific reasons. They could have their own “reasons” for believing what they believe. You’re right about some Republicans supporting space exploration along with this or that policy that happens to be harmonious with science. But, again, they might have other reasons for these beliefs. The long and short of it is that the Republican Party, by and large, does not believe in the fundamental principles of climate science, of biology, or–with regard to those Republicans (and there are many) who choose to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old–in the fundamental principles of geology, astronomy and chemistry. Simply put, the Republican Party of today does not believe in science.

P.S. As for “demonizing”, it’s not demonizing to simply state the beliefs of a political party. Those dozen or so Republican presidential candidates who raised their hands in declaration of their disbelief in evolution by natural selection were proud of their disbelief in science. I don’t see how it’s demonizing them to simply attribute to them beliefs that they proudly attribute to themselves. “Demonizing” would be something like, say, fabricating a story from whole-cloth about the Democratic President of the US being a covert illegal-alien political operative who infiltrated the US government to its highest level in order to carry out some nefarious plan on behalf of an underground Kenyan political movement…or whatever.


I see that you’ve denigrated both my argument and my motives, without disputing the facts that I offered. In response to the Atlantic article… Firstly, it’s devoid of actual Republican Party positions. My main point has been that the Republican Party is anti-science, and as such, that science has become a partisan issue. Whether or not Americans who aren’t elected officials believe in this-or-that is a related issue, but a tangential one. The citizenry has always been less educated and less informed, on average, than its elected officials–that’s why we elect people with supposed expertise, education and intellectual ability to be officials. Secondly, while there are Democratic voters who don’t believe in science, there aren’t many (or any that I know of) Democratic elected officials in the US Congress or Presidency or presidential candidates who have publicly expressed disbelief in climate change, evolution or other well-established scientific facts, such as the age of the Earth. Whereas many Republican Congress members, presidents and presidential candidates have been very vocal about rejecting scientific results concerning all of the above. Further, Republican elected officials act on their disbelief in science, citing it as rationale for their legislative votes. So, you see, what the Atlantic article is trying to pass off there is commonly known as a false equivalence, at least in terms of how the two parties actually govern. And I’ll just leave this here:

P.S. Looking at it again, the Atlantic article does refer to a general area of Republican Party climate change positions in order to suggest that they’re exclusively determined by economic factors. The problem, however, is that it’s a disingenuous argument by Republicans. Republicans like to explain their climate-change positions as being merely economic in nature for certain audiences, while calling climate change “a hoax” for other audiences. The current Republican president has called climate change “a hoax” publicly, as have quite a few Republican Congress members. And, the economic argument against supporting renewable energy is simply not valid, as there is abundant evidence showing that it would foster economic growth. Basically, “economic reasons” is a red herring that Republican officials throw out when speaking to mainstream audiences. When the US military has begun changing its technology in response to climate change, as it did a few years ago, it’s not reasonable to advocate total inaction in response to climate change for economic reasons.

Cygnus X-1,

All the use of boldface in the world will not make your argument any less of a straw-man. You have repeatedly made dubious claims with only your word to back it up and a single article written by a person with a clear bias. And you have yet to refute a single thing I have said besides saying the equivalent of “no it isn’t” and then complained I have done the same thing.

I have had the unfortunate experience of living with a man who listened to Alex Jones frequently and believed in virtually every kind of conspiracy out there. He used the same exact argument formula. First, one makes a claim about a topic typically involving a straw-man of the opposing side in which the opposing side is 100&% wrong about everything. Then when that view is challenged, immediately dismiss out of hand every possibility the enemy is any less than 100% wrong and claim the one questioning claims is only impugning character (despite the fact their argument rests on impugning said opposing sides character). Facts are not used in this argument to create theories, facts are bent to fit around pre-conceived theories.

People as a whole tend to reject that which challenges their core beliefs and accept that which does not.

Virtually every person of every political leaning has a part of science that is a blind-spot for them. Republicans support many elements of science but because they reject certain elements, you paint them as anti-science and then bend the facts to suit your narrative.


OK, well, the good news is that the effects of climate change will take several decades to fully manifest in a tangibly detrimental capacity. And, as such, you and I will be just fine for the duration of our lifespans, free to pursue a life of religious fulfillment.

I look forward to the eventual realization about 50 years from now that is wasn’t as bad as people assumed and generally the world kept spinning. I for one will of course recoil in horror at the approximately 0.3 mmeters the ocean will have risen by then. That is of course, unless I’m in prison by then.


Mean sea level has already risen 8 inches since the Industrial Revolution, and there’s every reason to believe that it will rise more than that over the coming decades.

The 0.3 meters in 50 years is based on the estimate of 0.6 meters in 100 years from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Assessment Report.



Are you referring to the AR5 (2014) report that the IPCC told the UN on March 23 of this year, “…Since AR5, new studies have enhanced concerns about the vulnerability of several sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, suggesting that sea level risks in non-mitigation scenarios might be twice as large as assessed in AR5…”?

Well, when they have an official revision and the research to back it up, I will revise my assessment from 0.3 meters to 0.6 meters.


Baseless denial of conclusions drawn from overwhelming scientific evidence isn’t rational skepticism—-it’s just irresponsible.

“The Climate Central research shows that coastal flooding days have more than doubled in the US since the 1980s, the primary drivers of which have been the warming of the atmosphere and oceans. The findings are based on a separate study, released on Monday, that found the Earth’s seas are rising at a pace unseen in the past 2,800 years.”


How is basing information off the IPCC research baseless denial of conclusions? Are you saying that perhaps all scientists are not in agreement on how bad it is, the central point of my skepticism.


Re: How is basing information off the IPCC research baseless denial of conclusions?

I believe you dug your own hole there when you broadly suggested that all peer reviewed Californian and Deep South science, scientists, science institutions, and technology are without scientific respect. Good luck on finding an IPCC report free from all such respect sapping Californian and Deep South contributions.

I specifically noted I would need it to be corroborated by a second source before believing it, not that it was wrong by nature, only that I was more skeptical of it. And that still doesn’t answer the origal question but good attempt at deflection, I’ve noticed you really enjoy it.


Re: specifically noted

Kindly show me from your preferred IPCC report resource where the IPCC took the extraordinary steps of second sourcing its each and every use of Californian and Deep South already peer-reviewed contributions that assuaged your concerns?

and how this did not:


The report resource I have used for the IPCC is their official website. If they have deemed that information reliable enough to be included in their report than I am reasonably comfortable in finding it reliable over straight from the Californian and Deep South reports as it means by definition it has been double checked and found to be reliable unless of course the assertion is that the IPCC just accepts whatever reports they are given as accurate with no investigation? If that is the case, then that kind of invalidates the idea that all of this research is iron clad because it would mean many of the reports aren’t being investigated properly and are just accepted as truth.

If the IPCC is accepted as a trustworthy organization, it must therefore follow they do conduct proper investigation and are reasonably accurate. If they are not considered trustworthy, well then clearly there must be a bit of a problem with the science being “ironclad and indisputable” as one of the major sources for this information is apparently untrustworthy.


Re: Scientific Respect

Speaking of deflecting, you’ve been doing that ever since you introduced this pseudo science superstitious nonsense that peer reviewed research can be weighted by this amorphous location concept of yours that can somehow identify research as Californian or Deep Southern in origin and is less respected throughout the world because it possesses one or more of these somehow geographically based characteristics.

The OED defines peer review as such:

“peer review
* n. evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same filed.”

Both reports use peer reviewed research that is by definition already second checked and then some and in addition, themselves were peer reviewed as well.

Your continued assertion that the IPCC somehow took extra steps over other such reports, such as rerunning experiments to verify them before citing them, is not evidenced anywhere that I can tell.

Again, I kindly ask you as the one who has made this specious assertion to show me evidence and not faith of where and how in the IPCC report that they identified certain research as “Californian” or “Deep Southern” in origin and specifically addressed your scientific respect concerns in those regards over other scientific peer reviewed reports that you assert didn’t.


I have been quite clear that an enhanced level of skepticism about sources is specific to me, your attempts to cast this as some pseudo scientific principle is a pathetic attempt at character assassination. It is a personal bias that exists owing to my interactions with the cultures and politics of those regions that may have an impact on those studies.

The reason I trust the IPCC study over the others is that due to its nature as a body made up of a diverse group of people with varying political and cultural backgrounds, I can be reasonably assured those influences are not at play.

I honestly am enjoying the fact that the argument you have chosen is one in which peer reviewed research is great because it means it has been double checked and verified but also relies on a prominent source of climate change information not doing any checking whatsoever and apparently not engaging in any kind of research which is at odds with the first part of your argument.


Re: Skepticism

I’m not talking about your jaundiced skepticism per se but rather pointing out your “faith” that, somehow, the IPCC, which doesn’t share this bias as you yourself admit that it is particular to you, addressed it in its due diligence. You admit it is an irrational bias and it appears to be a label merely wielded on a whim with no consistent rational for identifying scientific peer reviewed reports or research as Californian or Deep Southern other than the serendipitous culling of the field of research to make your position seem more science rational than it actually is.

I am honestly amused that while I have been consistent in this that all peer-reviewed work is more than double-checked that you keep insisting that I am talking about news reports and other sources which aren’t peer-reviewed.


The scientific consensus about climate change is 97%–99% depending on the year. That’s as certain as science (and life) ever gets, and those climate scientists study the issue for a living, unlike you. Citing a minuscule dissent isn’t a real basis for rational skepticism—it’s just hanging your resistance on anything you can find to hang it on. That tiny minority of climate scientists that dissents comprises people who admit to being guided by religious lore and other “crackpot” notions. You can find a minuscule minority of people in dissent of literally any scientific conclusion. There’s a Flat Earth Society with a web page. Should we suspend all seafaring based on their dissent? When you get to this point in an argument, there’s really no point in continuing. For any other issue affecting your well-being and livelihood, 97%–99% expert consensus would be more than enough to persuade you to act.


Re: …The scientific consensus about climate change is 97%…

Indeed, as of April 24 of this year, NASA, which some believe knows a thing or two about science, citing Cook page 6:

and page 3:


“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.” – NASA, April 24, 2017

Cygnus X-1

What I find hysterically funny is that I am about 95% in agreement with you on the issue of climate change but because I don’t 100% agree, I am painted as just as evil as someone who goes out and proclaims it all a hoax. It’s the dead giveaway for people stuck in an ideology. All the strawmen arguments in the world won’t convince me, I’ve heard em all before.

Cygnus X-1,

Ill admit my last post was a bit over angry, i wrote it right after I got off work so I was more aggressive than usual, I apologize.

I do think it is unlikely we are going to find much of a common ground at this point which is unfortunate.


Meanwhile, I live in California where we do things with a little less inertia:


With all due respect, I have about as much respect for California’s ability to be rational and scientific than I have for someone from most of the deep South. It is a bias of course and I fully recognize that perhaps in this case they are right but I would need to see corroboration from a more reputable source.

If you want to make real change on climate change prevention, you have to convince people that disagree with you. You can’t simply cast out people who question it as heretics for not believing your dogma.

I believe man is causing some degree of climate change and I am open to changes in how the world operates to stop it. However as of yet, I have not seen a single proposal that would do a decent job at preventing it with a low cost. I will not be swayed by people that shout “No cost is too high and if you dare question us, be cast out!”

Enjoy your own refusal to recognize other peoples points of view and pat yourself on the back based on being better than your own strawman versions of what they think. Its a lot easier than openly and honestly engaging in discussion.

Right on Cygnus. And if we consider the Religious Right [as you mentioned above], who now make up a large part of the party, there’s an even bigger reason the Republicans deny such science. In fact some of those same guys probably believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. SMDH

Marja, the influence of the religious right in the republican party has been on a decline since the 90s. If it were such a controlling interest in the party, why did Trump dominate over Ted Cruz (the far more religious right candidate)?

The Janeway facepalm isn’t in New York, but in Boston.

My first idea for a sign, which I didn’t do, was Benny Russell saying “You cannot pulp an idea.”

I did wear my Spock shirt though.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see any coherent message coming out of yesterday’s rallies. Just a bunch of people protesting… something. Evidently they all just basically said, “We love science”. Okay. And?

Sorry, but if these “March for Science” (what the hell does that mean anyway?) protesters wanted to move the needle at all on the national psyche, I think they completely failed. These crowds were just glorified social gatherings, about as deep and meaningful as a Twitter tweet. Completely forgotten 10 days from now.

What the hell did the “women’s march” mean? It means a support for women. The science march showed the same support. It really isn’t that hard to understand.

Here’s the thing about humans: when we feel threatened by something, we act. The fact is, this administration’s hostile attitude toward science is a threat. It’s a threat because science [and rational thinking in general] is humanity’s greatest tool to understand and deal with threats to our survival. Science is the reason modern society exists. Climate science in particular is enormously beneficial to national security, and should hold more sway over national policy. Instead, the buffoons in charge would rather erase it from the books as if it’s nothing. Well I’m sorry but it’s not nothing, it’s a pretty big deal, and me and the rest of the VAST majority of Americans are gonna march about it. And we’re gonna show people that these things matter. THAT’s why we march.

“What the hell did the “women’s march” mean?”

Nothing. It has already largely been forgotten. Same with the “March for Science”. Ask someone two weeks from now if they remember it. Go ahead and ask ten people. I’ll wager nine of them will say no.

Why? Because all it got was images on TV of people holding up vague signs. No unified theme. No demands. No threats to elected officials that they’ll be voted out of office if they continue to support anti-science legislation (except maybe Trump, who definitely isn’t paying attention.) Nothing. Nada. Just “we love science”. Or… something.

This wasn’t a protest. It was a Twitter get-together.

Thorny maybe you weren’t there. But people who were there were changed forever. I’m a messaging person, but this wasn’t only about messaging. It was also people getting together, knownig that they could all stand together against the greatest threat to democracy the United States has experienced in the post WW2 period. There was energy on the ground and in the streets and between people who knew they had to stand up and stand out for what they believed is right and what is wrong. Just speaking out itself is empowering and will have positive repercussions. And I can tell you that I’ve been to plentry of protets that did do nothing. The Women’s March was not that.

Thorny you are the thorniest Trek fan I’ve ever engaged on this site, and from what I’ve seen that’s saying something. Feel free to continue your clictivism or whatever you call meaningful action. I’m gonna exercise my rights to the fullest extent I can, and make it clear that yes, climate change is a big f-ing deal, and by not doing anything about it, you’re robbing me of my rights. I’m 25, I have a lot of life ahead of me. You old people sit and talk and ponder whether or not my future is worth saving. You said you’d take care of us, but instead you hate us because you don’t understand us. You blame us for being who you made us? Why don’t you blame yourselves for the world you left us, the world you won’t even be alive to see. Look around — this isn’t the climate you grew up with. This isn’t the world I asked for, it’s what you gave me. So you can sit back and let your children burn. I’m gonna fight for my right to life, and I don’t care that you’re not listening.

It provided a great excuse for long winded posts about nebulous concepts of togetherness and strength that really won’t amount to much of anything, because it lacked a clear, concise message with any kind of measurement of success or failure.

I myself am not a fan of Vietnam war anti-war rallies but I can admit they were effective by having a simple straight-forward message with an easy judgement of success or failure, one that is lacking in these marches. Like the “March for Women” which excluded loads of women who had different ideas because genders and races do not all hold the same ideas and opinions. So, what it really amounted to was a load of virtue signaling and patting each other on the back.

Take anti-gun rallies or pro-life rallies, they have clear concise message with clear indicators historically of failure. 20 or 30 years from now, what will the judgement of failure or victory be for the “March for Women”? Without a clear message, it will probably be forgotten or at best a footnote.

Days after Trump was inaugurated, several science agencies’ entire communications platforms were silenced to the point where these agencies were forced to start rogue accounts on Facebook and Twitter to communicate their scientific data. Not only that, but these agencies reported that decades of their research was being destroyed in an unprecedented move to erase data that was politically inconvenient for the Trump Administration’s agenda. It reminded me of the destruction of the library of Alexandria or the Nazi destruction and capturing of priceless pieces of art.

It was a nakedly political move on that administration’s part when science is supposed to be apolitical. This was a protest of self-defense.

My sign was “Never Obey the Opaque,” a non-ideological plea not to let science of any kind be hidden from the public. It also happened to have an illustration of the difference between opaque, translucent, and transparent.

Good Lord. You expect the ordinary citizen, whose support you need, to understand that slogan? You folks need to look at how political change was accomplished in the 1960s and 1970s. “Make Love, Not War”. “End the War”. “Equal Rights NOW”. “No Nukes”. Those are protests signs.

“Never Obey the Opaque”? Not so much.

Yeah, but those were protests with a focused, central message and a strong goal towards accomplishing, less about virtue signalling.

Celebrating the independence of science is a good thing. This administration decided that the first order of business is upend the public’s need to know.

In all respects, Trump’s plan for white supremacy. Read about Kris Kobach of Kansas, a close Trump advisor and think about how it connects to the other things you have read about Jeff Sessions, and how he will “review” the Justice Department’s agreements with local police made during the Obama administration. Think about why he wants to return to the 1980s style drug wars.

I’m just saying to anyone who we hear: we have to resist this administration in every peaceful way possible.

Sorry for the quick typing and typos. They’re up there.


Fascinating. No one silences the sciences. No one. Period.

Impressively, here in the UK, we managed to generate electricity for the whole country without using coal for 24 hours. The first time since the industrial revolution.

OMG, someone made the Tanagra episode reference on signage! LMAO! Love these people!

That said, this march isn’t about “we’re liberal if you aren’t you’re wrong” the main drive is people in political positions of power need to stop ignoring the overwhelming scientific data (much of which I think so of then do not understand) in favor of emission negatively effecting the environment, when roughly 90% of the scientific community internationally agrees there is at very least a correlation of not direct connection here.

The paid trolls are strong in this comments section. Just like the one on Trek stars tweeting about the Orlando Massacre turned into bashing people who advocate any sort of gun control. Seems this website is on the list of places to promote the stance of powerful groups who pay to trash gun control, and environmental controls to combat climate change. We see you for what you are.
The trolls will claim I am calling those who don’t agree with me here “trolls”, but we know better. There is no trekkie alive who thinks climate change is a hoax, or all of the facts aren’t in, or that the Trump administration isn’t going along with attacking science because it is inconvenient to corporations making money off of polluting our planet. We are smarter than that, and we are too smart to believe that you are sharing actual views. It’s propaganda of the worst kind. BTW, “Celebrity worship” is the most laughable counter to these marches I’ve ever heard.
I’d say “shame on you”, but we all know that you trolls have no shame, enabling destroying the only planet we have for a buck.

For people that preach about tolerance and acceptance, Trek fans are terrible at actually practicing that. Step even a little outside what they thing and bam, you are a heretic to be burned. But let me guess, I am just a “paid troll.” You and Alex Jones are two sides to the same coin, delusion and an inability to see beyond your own point of view.

I reject the left’s approach to science. If dissenting views are allowed here, I recommend you read this brief comment on the The Anti-Science “March for Science”:

These people who are supposedly marching for “science, reason, and logic” are the same people who actually defy “science, reason, and logic” by making outrageous claims like there are more than two genders and people can change their gender when scientific biological fact says otherwise. This is a political stunt pure and simple whose only goal is to attack the President and his administration, it is absolutely sickening and shame on these people for using Star Trek as a means to do so. I mean seriously it is so obvious that the people in these pictures are all liberals with an agenda just read their signs, this isn’t about science whatsoever they made it political. Also apparently these idiots didn’t get the memo that President Trump actually gave NASA $19.5 billion in funding with the goal of space exploration like exploring Mars, Obama didn’t give a damn about NASA and actually derailed its progress, so seeing these idiots hold those signs up suggesting that we do things that Trump already signed off on is pretty ironic.

We’re much closer to scientific and technological progress and the Star Trek vision of the future with the current administration than the last one, at least for space exploration which fosters tons of scientific and technological advancement. And before people start going on about global warming and people denying it, there are plenty of scientific theories that are constantly being debated by scientists themselves so not everything in Science is fact when we don’t even know all the facts yet. I don’t think anyone is opposed to cleaning up and protecting our environment but global warming is still something that is debated. It’s pretty unfortunate that science has now become a political tool but I’m honestly not surprised, if you think about it there has always been a political-esque aspect to science especially when it comes to those debated topics for example how there’s the constant struggle between mainstream science and non-maintream, if you’re a scientist and your theories and evidence aren’t accepted by the mainstream science community you’re often ousted and your reputation is ruined, sounds a lot like politics to me.

TM11, there are plenty of scientific theories that are constantly being debated by scientists themselves so not everything in Science is fact when we don’t even know all the facts yet.

Ever thought that this might also apply to gender?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual listed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1971.

It doesn’t apply to gender cause no matter what people try to identify as and no matter how many surgeries they get and how many hormones they take they will always be the gender they were born as. That is an indisputable fact, your biology and genetics determine your gender and you can’t change that. As for homosexuality and transgenderism being a mental disorder you are correct in that it is a topic that is still being debated, but again it is a fact that you will always be the gender you were born as.


Indeed it does because there are individuals alive with XXY AND XYY and your uninformed classification system insists that they can only be one of two choices of which both are neither.

Just because someone has an extra chromosome doesn’t mean they can magically change genders whenever they want, people are still either male or female whether they have an extra chromosome or not. Funny how out of my entire post people choose to pick out only what I said about gender, you obviously didn’t get the point of the post.


Re: someone has an extra chromosome

By that same reasoning the Y chromosome can be dismissed as just a defective X. You have no understanding of the driving engine behind evolution, and certainly no business pontificating on what XX, XY, YY, XXY, XYY, etc. means in relation to how many genders are possible combinatorially.

Besides, there are more even more combinations possible than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.

In birds, the Z and W chromosomes, NOT the X or Y, determine whether the organism’s male or female sexual characteristics are expressed.

The WW chromosome combination produces a male bird and the WZ produces the female. And, unlike in humans and other mammals, obviously the female determines her offspring’s gender as you would have it.

No matter what combinations of chromosomes you want to bring up, there are still ONLY TWO GENDERS and GENDER CANNOT CHANGE AFTER BIRTH. I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, to me you just sound delusional.



Oh? How does this contention of yours account for the very real occurrence of hermaphroditism in humans? Individuals born with both both sex organs have no defined gender. You appear to be advocating that it is impossible for such humans born to chose their gender or something worse: that they don’t have the right to chose?

If you’re so smart and seem to be an expert on genders, why don’t you tell me how many genders you believe there are? Cause I’m pretty sure on birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other forms of identification it says either MALE or FEMALE. I’m not advocating anything I’m just pointing out the facts, what people wanna do with their lives is their business but they are delusional in thinking that they can change their biology.


Re: Facts

You are confusing political realities with scientific facts.

Galileo’s astronomical observations and theoretical explanations were not invalidated because the papal state declared them so. A tomato is still a fruit even though the US government declares it a vegetable. A governing body declaring a set of people property, i.e. slaves, doesn’t make them something other than human. States declaring that having 1/32nd ethnic minority ancestry makes a human an minority while having 1/32nd majority ancestry does NOT make one of majority ancestry isn’t even logically consistent.

You are delusional when you state political expediencies to be scientific facts.

I mentioned combinatorial human sex chromosomes so that I could introduce you to the science of the intersex spectrum observed in human beings, the taxonomy of which is being updated as new science challenges even this breakdown for all the various observed variations which you claim not to be present.

From the ‘Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 18. 729—733 (2005)’:

The present taxonomy for congenital sexual
anatomies divides humans into five types:

1.Females: defined as presenting only standard
female sexual anatomy.

2. Males: defined as presenting only standard male
sexual anatomy.

3. Female pseudohermaphrodites: defined as pre-
senting some mixture or blurring of standard
female and male sexual anatomy with the
presence of ovaries (and not testes or ovotestes)
and of an ‘XX’ chromosomal complement.

4. Male pseudohermaphrodites: defined as presen-
ting some mixture or blurring of standard female
and male sexual anatomy with the presence of
testes (and not ovaries or ovotestes) and of an
‘XY’ chromosomal complement.

5. True hermaphrodites: defined as presenting at
least one ovary and at least one testis, or at least
one ovotestis. (The definition of true hermaphro-
ditism does not depend on the presentation of
other sexual anatomy or the chromosomal

Trump did not “give any money to NASA.” He proposed a budget which, unlike many other agencies, does not slash NASA’s budget, but the House of Representatives actually sets the budget, and then the Senate gets to vote on it as well. We have yet to see if Trump’s budget proposal to Congress is what ends up in the real thing. That’s how the whole checks and balances things works.

He signed a bill into law authorizing $19.5 billion in funding that also adds exploration of Mars as a NASA goal, but yet these idiots protesting thinks he’s against science. You obviously missed whole the point. I don’t see how arguing semantics has any bearing on the fact that what he did is pro-science when people accuse him otherwise. Go back and reread my original post.

So, none of Trump’s other statements and activities suggest otherwise? You’re just going to base your conclusion on a proposed budget for NASA?

I haven’t seen anything that would justify the accusation that he’s anti-science, no evidence whatsoever. People will literally find something wrong with everything he does just because they don’t like him, he could walk on water and people would say it’s cause he can’t swim. Nothing but BS accusations, I don’t know how anyone can take them seriously. This protest is just an excuse to attack the President, it isn’t about science it’s a political statement.

Partial list of why “those idiots think he’s against science:”


Non sequitur, Hitler’s willingness to fund rocket research didn’t make Nazi eugenics science.


It is absolutely true that Hitler engaged in what is now known to be anti-science activities (alongside actual scientific activities) but at the time, that was considered accepted science. It is a very good thing that science evolved and properly stopped that particular brand of pseudo-scientific crap and Nazi Germany was disgusting by modern standards and rightfully so but at the time was extremely scientifically literate. It would be disingenuous to simply declare them anti-science because they did engage in and support actual science but it was along with pseudo-scientific crap.

Let me be quite clear about this, Nazi Germany was a disgusting example of pseudo science run amok but that does not invalidate everything they did as anti-science.


Re: …not invalidate everything they [Nazis] did as anti-science.

I never made that assertion but it is a dubious distinction on your part nevertheless. Hitler, to which all in Germany had swear unquestioning allegiance, was results-oriented and not science-oriented. To be pro science, one has to provide a mechanism by which one can be proven wrong. Hitler never allowed the possibility of such a thing and because of that, he and the Nazis were most assuredly anti-science. That various Nazis were able to use science to appease him is irrelevant to their anti-science precept that he could never be wrong.

FWIW the concepts behind “Social Darwinism” predated Darwin and, in fact, were thoroughly repudiated by his research and the man himself. Those unwilling to abandon those precepts, slapped his name upon it to give it an air of scientific legitimacy it never actually had after he published.


One cannot be anti-science and also embrace it enthusiastically constantly. Anti-science people are people that reject science not people that reject some science and accept others. If that is the definition of anti-science, I would doubt you could find a single person or society that isn’t anti-science.

Humans have a psychological drive to find and believe information that confirms their bias and thus when something in science conflicts with they “already know to be true” they will reject it.

Nazis were an extremely scientifically literate society, they were just a terrible society in terms of morality and ethics which are separate from science.


Hell by that definition of anti-science, most clmate change supporters are anti-science. There is no mechanism for them to be proven wrong and it is predominantly results based. All the scientists agree and the ones who don’t are crackpots and they are crackpots because they don’t agree. This in turn means that research that supports climate change gets recognition and reward and research that opposes it gets trashed so there is no incentive for that to be the result. Where in that system is the mechanism for being wrong? And how is that not a results-oriented system?

I genuinely don’t understand how some of you are Trekkies and still bashing people who are trying to promote the importance of science. This isn’t even a liberal/conservative issue, this is literally about an administration that’s pulling away from science and facts. That alone is the most anti Trekkie thing right there. I’m not trying to be condescending, hateful, or even angry, I just genuinely don’t understand that way of thinking. Would love for someone who feels differently to express their opinions.

This entire issue is loaded with strawmen. The administration isn’t anti-science, every administration has elements of science, facts, and reason they don’t like and thus ignore. It’s not any different now than it was under Obama, Bush, and all the rest. So in order to fight the dragon of their discontent, one side inevitably casts their opponents in the worst possible light then champions how this isn’t a partisan issue and they are open to reasonable discussion so long as that discussion is blind agreement with what they want. In 4 or 8 years, a new administration will be in place and again this whole theater will happen again, the players may change but the act continues.

This is demonstrably not so.

Yes it is. This basic freakout happens every 4 to years.


Your turn?

Wow, what a well reasoned and intellectual response. Your parents must be very proud.

A well-reasoned and intellectual response? “Yes it is. This basic freakout happens every 4 to years.”


Your only counterpoint was “This is demonstrably not so.” I responded that indeed it was as you had provided no evidence of it not being so. I noted that one side freaking out over the other sides position on a subject happens every time a new administration gains power.

Your inability to grasp this hardly damages my argument.

Illuminating per the conversation below perh

Thanks for the link, VoR [Voice of Reason?]

Yes :)

I also want to add that the US is facing a 1/2 a trillion dollar budget defecit, a 20 trillion dollar debt, a trillion dollar student loan crisis, a trillion dollar credit card crisis and hundred trillion dollar funding liability (ie. Retirement, pensions, etc.), and this is on top of trying to keep SSI and medicare/Medicaid/etc. funding solvent. And you people are complaining about a hair trim cut on the EPA and other departments? Lol. I love reading about the priorities of some of you people…

Real Trek fans care about climate change

No true Scotsmen

Even when married to another scientist, with political views a bit more liberal than mine, not ONCE did I hear any of our other scientist and science-minded friends mention the Asian Brown Cloud. When I brought it up, it was blown off as a political farce. Please tell me again how “science people” are all about the facts? Like anything else, they are only about the facts that they agree with.

Wait, are you suggesting that scientists are people and thus susceptible to the same flaws as common people? Heresy, I’m sure.

I wonder how many actually got the ‘four lights’ reference?

I am enjoying this conversation. I worry we all have our biases in how to use good science and data. Take something I just learned from a fascinating scientific american podcast ( … If I understood it correctly, house cats would seem to be truly a menace. They are growing in numbers because of us and we let them roam … where they procreate, so the menace is expanding. More than 60 species of birds have gone extinct because of them. Whole flocks of migratory birds are disappearing because of them and are in danger of disappearing. Billions of birds die a year, killed by cats. The mental and brain effects of disease agents cats carry are growing and worrisome in humans too. Seems, actually, that cats may be a more immediate danger to the environment than almost anything else. Yet, would Data get rid of his cat? Are all of us willing to kill millions of our furry friends? Should the government budget for that? That might be implied by, well, science.