Weaponizing and Politicizing 'Science'

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c0dca5815634

At the root of this, what I find the most infuriating, is they are trying to say that all "science" people are on with their agenda. That is similar to the left hijacking 'women' by saying that any women that is conservative/GOP is a traitor to their sex or suffering from beaten-wife-syndrome.

The most press from these events centers around sings that people are walking around with



But it isn't political- socialists against Trump and for science....





What I find most interesting about the signs is that if you had done these signs in the 1920-30s there would be all kinds of eugenics references. In the 1960s it would be Malthusian based population disasters, in the 1980-90s peak oil.

The wholly unscientific assertion that we have to submit to their collectivist progressivism because it is science- and can not be questioned, is truly the least scientific thing that you could do.

I can tell you first hand the science has left the building when it comes to the EPA and the FDA and you can get a National Lab to pretty much say anything you want if you bring enough cash. I guess they can't use the 'Leave the laws to the lawyers' anymore.

[chuckman]

The scientific community is as boorish and bullying as any out there. It's incredible, the partisanship, politics, and mud-slinging scientists engage in against those who aren't on board.

[Firefly]

I thought this thread would be about death rays and the ethics of sexaroids.

This is as bad as the "Who is a Tesla fan?" thread and it was about the cars and not the band

Hippies gonna hippie. Always have, always will

[26 Inf]

All I got to say is some people gonna go with the dogma of their clan no matter what.

Generally I'm not speaking of science geeks.

This appeared while I was editing down a rather lengthy reply:

The scientific community is as boorish and bullying as any out there. It's incredible, the partisanship, politics, and mud-slinging scientists engage in against those who aren't on board.

Why should they be different than anyone else? Look at the way, as a whole, members of this forum band against anyone who hasn't drank the mil-spec, Colt makes war horses not show ponies, mantra.

I once attended a church where the Pastor believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old. When it became an issue I changed churches, couldn't swallow that Kool-Aid.

I have a basic understanding of meteorology and the world's climate system. Up to a point it is pretty self-cleaning. Common sense tells me that man's increased burning of fossil fuels within the last several centuries has to have some impact on the natural rhythm's of the earth's wash and rinse cycles. How much of an impact is up for debate. What I do know is that if we continue to increase the world's population and more folks exit third world economies the impact will increase. You and I are going to be okay, we are gambling with our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.

Believing oil companies and their investors regarding climate change without independent thought is just as stupid as believing the tobacco executives when they said smoking was safe and the dangers of secondhand smoke was a myth.

Sorry, I filter the kool-aide.

[Scrubber3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c0dca5815634

At the root of this, what I find the most infuriating, is they are trying to say that all "science" people are on with their agenda. That is similar to the left hijacking 'women' by saying that any women that is conservative/GOP is a traitor to their sex or suffering from beaten-wife-syndrome.

The most press from these events centers around sings that people are walking around with



But it isn't political- socialists against Trump and for science....





What I find most interesting about the signs is that if you had done these signs in the 1920-30s there would be all kinds of eugenics references. In the 1960s it would be Malthusian based population disasters, in the 1980-90s peak oil.

The wholly unscientific assertion that we have to submit to their collectivist progressivism because it is science- and can not be questioned, is truly the least scientific thing that you could do.

I can tell you first hand the science has left the building when it comes to the EPA and the FDA and you can get a National Lab to pretty much say anything you want if you bring enough cash. I guess they can't use the 'Leave the laws to the lawyers' anymore.

So in the picture on the bottom: the person with the pink hair (or whatever that is).. Is that a man or a woman?

[chuckman]

So in the picture on the bottom: the person with the pink hair (or whatever that is).. Is that a man or a woman?

Get with 2017, man, it is whatever it chooses to be. And it can change.

[MegademiC]

My favorite thing is the people who shout "science!" The loudest, don't understand it.

Gmo and gluten are bad, and organic is the saving grace... vegan... despite what science says, but global warming is warming during mild winter, it's global climate change if winter is nasty, and screw you if you don't believe it.

Even though I make a living with science daily... yea, I don't know what I'm talking about, but you are so educated from the article you read once while smoking an organic dubie.

[26 Inf]

So in the picture on the bottom: the person with the pink hair (or whatever that is).. Is that a man or a woman?

Elton John.

ETA - I think that is supposed to represent a brain.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Science!

[WillBrink]

On paper, I liked the idea alot. In reality, I knew it would be used mostly to focus on politicized topics with little science discussed. Had I thought those gathering where there to support science and scientists and perhaps a slant on keeping politics out of science, might even have attended myself. Knowing it would just be a bunch of people pushing their particular agenda while pretending to support science is what I expected and what showed up for the most part.

It was a partisan chit show