http://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-for-science-rallies-mark-earth-day-in-cities-around-the-world/
>NEW YORK -- Scientists worldwide left their labs and took to the streets Saturday along with students and research advocates, pushing back against what they say are mounting attacks on science.
>The March for Science, coinciding with Earth Day, was set for more than 500 cities, anchored in Washington, D.C., and to be joined by dozens of nonpartisan scientific professional societies in a turnout intended to combine political and how-to science demonstrations.
>“When the first time in recorded history scientists have to get together to form a march in support of science, something serious is going on,” Rockefeller University’s Erich Jarvis told CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook, who is covering the march in Washington.
>>134437
>Organizers portrayed the march as political but not partisan, promoting the understanding of science as well as defending it from various attacks. They cited proposed federal cuts to the National Institutes of Health totaling $6 billion, or 18 percent of the institute’s budget.
>The marches also come at a time when Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future of the planet. A CBS News poll found this week that just 12 percent of Americans believe the environment will improve for the next generation, while 57 percent said it will get worse.
>Here are the highlights from marches and Earth Day events around the globe.
>>134438
>Washington, D.C.
>Signs and banners readied for the Washington rally reflected anger, humor and obscure scientific references, such as a 7-year-old’s “No Taxation Without Taxonomy.” Taxonomy is the science of classifying animals, plants and other organisms.
>The sign that 9-year-old Sam Klimas held was red, handmade and personal: “Science saved my life.” He had a form of brain cancer and has been healthy for eight years now. His mother, grandmother and brother traveled with him from Parkersburg, West Virginia. “I have to do everything I can to oppose the policies of this administration,” said his grandmother, Susan Sharp.
>>134440
>New York City
>In Manhattan, the March for Science began with a rally at 10:30 a.m. near Columbus Circle at Central Park West.
>Thousands of participants walked down Broadway to midtown Manhattan. The march was set to end at West 52nd Street.
>Boston
>Scientists from across Massachusetts are planning to gather on the Boston Common at 1 p.m. for a rally.
>Among those participating are scientists and researchers from Harvard University, MIT, Clark University, UMass-Lowell and Massachusetts General Hospital.
>Scheduled speakers at the rally include former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, who has been sharply critical of Trump’s efforts to unravel former President Barack Obama’s plan to curb global warming.
>Berlin
>Several thousand people participated in a march from the one of the Berlin’s universities to the Brandenburg Gate landmark.
>Meike Weltin is a doctorate student at an environmental institute near Berlin. She said she was participating because - in her words - “I think that politics need to listen to sciences.”
>Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, has endorsed March for Science events across Germany. Gabriel says “free research and teaching are the supporting pillars of an open and modern society.”
>>134441
>London
>Physicists, astronomers, biologists and celebrities gathered for a march past London’s most celebrated research institutions. Supporters carried signs showing images of a double helix and chemical symbols.
>The protest was putting scientists, who generally shy away from advocacy and whose work depends on objective experimentation, into a more public position.
Well, I never really liked scientists that much. Most of them are establishment shills and grant queens who've never worked an honest day in their life. Everyone puts so much stock in intelligence when it is passion and faith that make humanity strong.
>>134476
>Everyone puts so much stock in intelligence when it is passion and faith that make humanity strong.
... Those are not mutually exclusive
>>134485
No, it's against shit like the hollow earth, electric universe, phrenology, aether theorists, and flatearthers. Not surprisingly, both /pol/tards and sjws are antiscience, so they get incidentally targeted.
>>134488
Well then reality apparently has a leftist agenda bias.
I understand people can be bought off by large sums of money.
And scientists are people. That's why we see a minority of scientists that deny anthropogenic climate change funded from the billions that extractive resource multinationals pour into front organizations that lobby for them.
But for the large majority of scientists, nobody goes into science or climatology because they wanna be welfare leech or wanna do bogus science. Most people who go into these fields have a genuine interest and desire to contribute useful data and meaningful data analysis. Nobody decides they're going to go into climatology because of the job security and six figure salary.Nobody wants to think they're contributing to bogus propaganda. This idea that the majority of climatologists are in it for the money is absolutely ridiculous.
Even if there was a mass conspiracy by scientists, budget cuts coming solely from the Earth Science programs compromise our ability to collect essential data that we use for our businesses and national security. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions scientists are reaching, we need data to know what's going on whether or not you agree with a particular analysis.
>>134493
The only way to get rid of the taint would be to throw out the scientists onto the street and get in /ourguys/. Conservatives ruled science in the 19th century, and it was a golden age, and we may be able to resurrect all the sciences that liberals destroyed like eugenics and social darwinism if we take back control of the sciences.
>>134498
We have to get rid of public schools for that to happen.
This sums up the entire Environmental Movement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxStnrkjF_Y
>>134498
>>134499
Getting rid of public education will go a long way to fix it. Education is a privilege, not a right.
>>134502
The real hard redpill to swallow is there are people in your conservative internet movement who don't care and are just doing it to be funny.
>>134504
Exactly!
Wealth should dictate your own damn worth. If you're poor, then you either have to pull up your weight and work hard, or you die!
That's why Welfare and other Social Programs need to be abolish because it's forced Charity.
>>134506
>implying AGW is real.
One say that AGW is a good thing since it'll end winter and bring in eternal Spring.
>>134502
>Eugenics are leftist (planned parenthood)
>/pol/ is now leftist
>>134511
https://youtu.be/E6IRlrJgNpA
Fascism IS leftist.
>>134510
https://fee.org/articles/12-reasons-to-oppose-the-welfare-state/
>Soft-Core Case
>1.Universal social programs that “help everyone” are folly. Regardless of your political philosophy, taxing everyone to help everyone makes no sense.
>2.In the U.S. (along with virtually every other country), most government social spending is devoted to these indefensible universal programs - Social Security, Medicare, and K-12 public education for starters.
>3.Social programs - universal or means-tested - give people perverse incentives, discouraging work, planning, and self-insurance. The programs give recipients very bad incentives; the taxes required to fund the programs give everyone moderately bad incentives. The more “generous” the programs, the worse the collateral damage. As a result, even programs carefully targeted to help the truly poor often fail a cost-benefit test. And while libertarians need not favor every government act that passes the cost-benefit test, they should at least oppose every government act that fails it.
>4.“Helping people” sounds good; complaining about “perverse incentives” sounds bad. Since humans focus on how policies sound, rather than what they actually achieve, governments have a built-in tendency to adopt and preserve social programs that fail a cost-benefit test. Upshot: We should view even seemingly promising social programs with a skeptical eye.
>>134513
>Medium-Core Case
>5. There is a plausible moral case for social programs that help people who are absolutely poor through no fault of their own. Otherwise, the case falters.
>6. “Absolutely poor.” When Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread to save his sister’s son, he has a credible excuse. By extension, so does a government program to tax strangers to feed Valjean’s nephew. If Valjean steals a smartphone to amuse his sister’s son, though, his excuse falls flat — and so does a government program designed to do the same.
>7. “No fault of their own.” Why you’re poor matters. Starving because you’re born blind is morally problematic. Starving because you drink yourself into a stupor every day is far less so. Indeed, you might call it just desserts.
>8. Existing means-tested programs generally run afoul of one or both conditions. Even if the welfare state did not exist, few people in First World countries would be absolutely poor. And most poor people engage in a lot of irresponsible behavior. Check out any ethnography of poverty.
>9. First World welfare states provide a popular rationale for restricting immigration from countries where absolute poverty is rampant: “They're just coming to sponge off of us.” Given the rarity of absolute poverty in the First World and the massive labor market benefits of migration from the Third World to the First, it is therefore likely that existing welfare states make global absolute poverty worse.
>>134516
>Hard-Core Case
>10. Ambiguity about what constitutes “absolute poverty” and “irresponsible behavior” should be resolved in favor of taxpayers, not recipients. Coercion is not acceptable when justification is debatable.
>11. If private charity can provide for people in absolute poverty through no fault of their own, there is no good reason for government to use tax dollars to do so. The best way to measure the adequacy of private charity is to put it to the test by abolishing existing social programs.
>12. Consider the best-case scenario for forced charity. Someone is absolutely poor through no fault of his own, and there are no disincentive effects of transfers or taxes. Even here, the moral case for forced charity is much less plausible than it looks. Think of the Good Samaritan. Did he do a noble deed — or merely fulfill his minimal obligation? Patriotic brainwashing notwithstanding, our “fellow citizens” are strangers— and the moral intuition that helping strangers is supererogatoryis hard to escape. And even if you think the opposite, can you honestly deny that it’s debatable? If so, how can you in good conscience coerce dissenters?
>>134515
Liberal founded.
Nice try, but we done this shit before for AGW.
>>134494
>bought off by le ebil corporate trigillionaires
>not bought off by the hundreds of billions of dollars of Grant money from around the globe.
>>134520
Corporations just want to serve you high quality goods and make your life comfortable.
Governments want to dominate every little aspect of your life, steal your money to do so, and go to war to gain more power.
>>134521
Convince me to care about poor people who don't help themselves out of poverty.
>>134521
I mean in some sense, poor people should die.
Not that I want them too or that I think it isn't tragic that they do; but we cannot keep everyone alive past 80+ years with costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per person all on the government dime.
The United States is currently $200 trillion+ in debt, we will literally be crushed by unfunded liabilities in the next 50 years unless we undo the damage done by the progressives and their "great society".
>>134521
Poor people should die because they're the burden on society!
But that's my opinion: The point is that charity should be an option, not an obligation.
You're not obligated to pay for education, environmental protection, or anything that you don't want nor need.
Hell, the Libertarian Party; the greatest party on earth, agrees with this notion.
>Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.
>Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
>>134526
Libertarians are just liberals attempting to hijack the conservative movement.
>>134527
What does my post have to do with communism?
Other than FDR and the other mid 1900 liberals being literal subversive communists?
>>134529
The US was clearly on the wrong side during WW2.
>>134532
Incorrect and correct.
We were on the wrong side of the Spanish American war, which led to the expansion of American interventionalism, which led to WW1 and WW2.
Basically our side should have been "no side"
>>134533
No libritarian, no sane person WANTS poor people to die honey.
But not everyone can live for ever and you don't have a RIGHT to other people's money and services for your longevity.
>>134510
The rights of children, even more than those of parents, have been systematically invaded by the state. Compulsory school attendance laws, endemic in the United States since the turn of this century, force children either into public schools or into private schools officially approved by the state. Supposedly “humanitarian” child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors. Forcibly prevented from working and earning a living, and forced into schools which they often dislike or are not suited for, children often become “truants,” a charge used by the state to corral them into penal institutions in the name of “reform” schools, where children are in effect imprisoned for actions or non-actions that would never be considered “crimes” if committed by adults.
>>134539
Exactly!
Less Government, Less Taxes.
To hell with HealthCare!
Lefties like to do this thing where they assign your position as a strawman they can easily knock over.
>Trump supporters hate women, March for Women!
>Trump supporters hate science, March for Science!
What's next? March for goodness? March for love? It's all the same: leftists upset they lost, and that their lefty positions aren't being catered to for a change.
>>134542
Healthcare will still be provided by private professionals who will deliver a much better product than the government ever could.
>>134544
I ment universal Healthcare and Income.
SSI and Medicaid should be abolished.
>>134518
Fuck off liberal
>>134547
Fuck poor people? LMAO Medicare fucked over poor people. Insurance prices went sky high and my family couldn't afford shit because of Obama. Fuck liberals and the mentally retarded dems
>>134574
The welfare system is what attracted illegals in the first place.
>>134583
>welfare is great
WRONG.
It's literally the #1 problem plauging the United States.
It's why we are $200 trillion dollars in debt.
Boy does this article on a revolt against the Trump administration bring out the /pol/ in people; we're no longer on fucking topic anymore!
It's now Conservative vs. Liberal board now!
>>134606
>I don't believe in the political spectrum:
https://8values.github.io
>>134610
Then why do you hate Environmentalists then?
>>134615
Which is why you hate them.
Jesus Christ was this board always this retarded?
>>134607
>>134608
Please stop shilling your shit link.
https://www.google.com/#q=%2B%228values.github.io%22+site:4chan.org
Yeah, if you ask a bunch of random controversial questions with no opportunity to provide qualifiers, if, ands, or buts, of course everyone is going to be divided neatly into your special little dozen camps.
But the reality is that most people's views are much more nuanced than that, and it's just another divide and conquer tool taking advantage of the baser social instincts, divorced from reality, save that it demonstrates that basic desire to simultaneously feel one belongs to a one group by vilifying another until they are mere caricatures.
>>134476
Stand there holding on to your passion and faith. See how far it gets you. Science, technology, and hard work have carried us much farther. Faith has destroyed more lives than it has saved.
>>134512
Actually. Communism is left and fascism is right.
Can't you idiots get your facts straight. Oh yeah. You don't believe in them...
>>134522
Actually. Corporations just want to make money. If they can make more money by destroying the environment, then they will. If they can make more money by taking advantage of the employees, then they will. They do not have morals. The only thing that matters is the bottom line.
>>134523
Many poor don't have the resources necessary to thrive. In fact they are often driven to crime and drug use for survival and to cope with the pain. You hold thus against them. They are products of the environment we place them in. Caused by further social stratification.
Related:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/social-stratification-definition-theories-examples.html
>>134649
both are leftist ideologies the right is home to libertarians anarchists more government equals further to the left less equals further to the right just because it is racist does not mean it is right wing.
>>134520
There's a big difference between money that goes into someone's pocket and grant money which can only legally be used for research.
>>134654
Not really as that money goes to pay researchers who can then make up bogus studies and publish them in corrupt journals and repeat different ones to continue to get paid.
>>134620
It's basically pol 2.0 now
>>134657
It always was.
>>134657
/pol/ evolved from the old /new/s
>>134657
>>134660
https://youtu.be/DTlyOB_I7yc
4chan is an alt-right site. Always has been, always will. When the fire rises, we will be the ones driving this nation into the future. We will be the ones who awaken America and throw out the liberals. And by kek, we will be the ones who complete Hitler's and Turner's dream and bring about a glorious final war of nuclear extermination to secure our global lebensraum.
>>134657
It's better than it used to be. There was a period when this board was filled with "JEWS NIGGERS SHITSKINS ASDFASGFDFKHSLGF"
>>134661
Don't ever complain about hyperbolic liberals again.
>>134656
If they wanted money, they'd be working in private industry.
>>134684
Why should they their scam is working pretty well for themselves right now.
>>134601
What do you expect when plebbit and /leftypol/ flood /news/ with Trump hit pieces then sit around for 30 until someone calls out its bullshit to pounce.
>>134661
>4chan is an alt-right site. Always has been, always will.
This unironically will kill 4chan
Fuck off with this real life shit
>>134656
Your saying if they found contradictory evidence and published it their grant money would dry up? Seems pretty dubious. Whats an example where this has happened.
>>134543
This
>>134620
>>134657
>>134660
>>134661
Friendly reminder that /pol/'s favorite mod Swaglord literally writes articles for the observer http://observer.com/2017/04/why-4chan-isnt-buying-what-bill-nye-and-political-entertainers-are-selling/
which is owned by Jared Kushner.
/pol/ is literally a hive of shills and alphabet soup organizations meant to indoctrinate impressionable, alienated young men into being pro-authoritarian, pro-corporate drones.
>>135220
But it's far right:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-observer/
>>135227
That was kind of my point- this place has been overrun by far-right shills working to con people into becoming obedient little bootlickers. It seems like /lit/ is the only board that even knows what "left-wing" even means any more, because they're the only ones who actually read about the subject instead of listening to what the shills tell them.
>>135237
>this place has been overrun by far-right shills
Look at the top 20 threads on this board.
How many Pro-Conservative threads are there?
How many Anti-Conservative threads are there?
Use the resulting information to re-evaluate your statement.
My dad is a prof and says that only a small fraction of scientists/ researchers contribute anything meaningful to society.
>>135244
As a scientist I disagree, but I suppose it depends on what he means by "meaningful." Also if people researching pop culture and shit like that count then I will have to agree. Most actual wet lab science is pretty usedul and even if incremental can be a stepping stone for a much bigger discovery down the road.
>>135250
>As a scientist
yeah, ok kid
>>135244
And what is he a professor of?
>>135283
He's a Professor of the Custodial Arts
>>135257
Just because you don't have anything going on in your life doesn't mean other people don't.
>>135302
>Just because you don't have anything going on in your life doesn't mean other people don't.
Sure thing anonymous internet person
>>135304
You're free to believe what you want. Not really much can be done to sway you, especially on a text only board.
>>135307
Sure thing anonymous internet person
>>135244
Your dad is wrong.
Hopefully now that you're old enough to browse 4chan, you're old enough to not believe every retarded thing other people tell you.
Science works because it is the study of how to make predictions and collecting data and doing data analysis to make better predictions has and will always be essential. So I'd love to see conservatives of all stripes boycott scientists. A few intelligent people would die, but by and large our planet would stop having an idiot problem.