#MarchForScience open thread

[Okeefenokee]

The latter.

Doc is majoring in engineering and StA has a stem related degree iirc. I think fife is just a smooth talker and passed a BAR exam somehow...

Also California has a useless degree and a good job. He won the lottery.

Okee is studying for his mechanical engineering and daralon is studying for some kind of information technology degree because he wants a good job and doesn't want to work hard enough to major in computer science or electrical engineering

Fairly certain deo has a law degree, flip has major an English degree(?) Martin bought all of his degrees from China, commiecatface has an associates in women studies.... another guy who a beavis avatar has a law degree and there are at least a few others with various degrees including yourself and the rest of the Viking horde.

And then there's me who has an advanced degree in general shit headedry.

Nuke is the kind of friend that knows about his friends. That's a good friend.

[Okeefenokee]

Lol, see how they snuck that in there?



There are going to be unemployed hipsters with degrees in interpretive scream poetry on the streets saying, "People say degrees in the STEAM fields are very lucrative, but look at me. It's a bunch of bullshit."

[Ex-California]

The problem is women.

[Speaker to Animals]

Everybody is starting to figure that out finally.

[TheOneX]

Tucker let me down. Here, Tucker, I'll help:

"What would the climate be like now?"
"It would be like 1750."
"Oh, are you a climate scientist?"
"No, but I am a scientist."
"I thought only climate scientists could understand Climate Change?"
"No, I think anybody who thinks about it can."
"But what about the Physics Nobel Laureate that thinks the climate would not be like 1750?"
"Well, not Nobel Laureates, only guys in bowties who don't even have PhDs, and hipsters, of course. Plus feminists."
"Yeah, get the fuck off my stage."

Bill Nye isn't a scientist though. He is a media personality, with an engineering degree. There is a reason why his show was called "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and not "Bill Nye the Scientist", and it wasn't only because the former title is catchier.

[ssu]

Bill Nye isn't a scientist though. He is a media personality, with an engineering degree. There is a reason why his show was called "Bill Nye the Science Guy" and not "Bill Nye the Scientist", and it wasn't only because the former title is catchier.

Mr Nye is one of those called populizers of science, people that have broad enough understanding to talk generally about something as broad as science. And basically will face the extremely hostile environment of MSM talk shows, once something gets politically charged (like stem cell research or climate studies). Michio Kaku is another example, who you might call a scientist (70 papers published on scientific journals), yet who simply is well known because of the TV programs he has done. Similarly was Carl Sagan (with 600 scientific papers published), who after one of the early popular TV programs came to be a science populizer... or science communicator.

But one thing gets me confused about this discussion. Do people doubt here climate change in general?

[Montegriffo]

But one thing gets me confused about this discussion. Do people doubt here climate change in general?

Only right wing Americans. For them it's not a science matter but a political one. eg ''it's just Marxists trying to take my money''.

[ssu]

But one thing gets me confused about this discussion. Do people doubt here climate change in general?

Only right wing Americans. For them it's not a science matter but a political one. eg ''it's just Marxists trying to take my money''.

Seems to me like if a Democrat politician takes up something, it has to be bad and wrong, I guess. Hence Al Gore talking about climate change makes even the science a political issue. Now there is a political side to it, and that is what environmental laws etc. you create, yet that hasn't got anything to do with the science and the scientific observations. When it comes to policy recomendations based on some scientific findings, that is a totally other issue. The science and the observed facts can surely be right, yet where scientists can easily make then the wrong step is when they make those normative recomendations, is how to fix things.

And I think it's not only the right that can get confused. You can easily see this with an example where leftists and many environmentalists react the same: if global warming is dangerous and we have to go off from fossil fuels that increase the greenhouse effect, why not then turn to nuclear energy? France get's a huge share of it's energy from nuclear power and it hasn't had major accidents with it. The perils of nuclear energy is a prime example how the whole discourse twists into such a mess that basically reason goes out the window and ignorance and prejudices prevail.

[Dand]

It's not that the climate doesn't change over time, it's that "Climate Change" (formerly Global Cooling and Glibal Warming) is a buzzword and the implications that come with it are Marxist cash grabs and/or attempts to destabilize the population.

[Speaker to Animals]

Changing the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere is probably a really bad idea no matter how you cut it.