The March for ... What?

The Patriot Post ^ | April 21,2017 | Joe Bastardi

[Hojczyk]

The March for Science is tomorrow and no one in their right mind would say they are against it because of its name. First of all, you are standing against the right of people to march for whatever cause they wish. Second, you would be portrayed as someone who is against science.

I am all for science. I think the climate changes. It always has and always will. Yet I have been portrayed as anti-science and a climate change “denier” by many who will be marching for things I certainly believe in.

Just who does not believe in science? It’s a straw man the marchers are marching against.

What is questionable is the way science is being portrayed and used. Here is an example. You have seen this a kajillion times; now it’s a kajillion and one.

This shows no apparent linkage between CO2 and temperature in a time scale that goes back millions of years. So as someone who is acquainted with the scientific method, I am instantly skeptical of the idea that after all this time, there is now a linkage. That does not mean there can’t be, and I am open to that argument and understand it. But as I asked in my last blog, how much linkage is there?

What I am trying to figure out is why there is a march when many of the people in that march have no tolerance for the questioning of their position. While I think it’s noble to be inclusive and diverse, are any “skeptics” included as speakers? Is there diversity of thought? Of course not. Because in spite of what you see in the graphs above and below, they ignore the obvious.

[M-cubed]

Results of research are decidedly mixed in this area. Yet we are falsely told the science is settled. <<<

yeah..but science research behind the sexes has NEVER been mixed....There are 2 sexes...Male and Female...PERIOD!...Yet we are falsely told that THAT science is NOT settled

comparing those 2 examples pretty much tells you all you need to know.......its all about agendas....NOT SCENCE!

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yep good point. When it comes to all this gender identity business, it seems as if there are different liberal criteria used in that area of life.

In the area of sexuality, we are told to disregard the observable physical and chromosomal differences between the two sexes.

Or as one spokeswoman I heard express it, she said we are too focused on crotches. She said that sexual identity is not based on what’s between your legs, it is based on what is between your ears; your own identity in your mind is the overriding factor in gender identity .

Clearly that whole LGBT gender identity thing, is looked at by the liberals very differently than how they look at the global warming issue.

[M-cubed]

Clearly that whole LGBT gender identity thing, is looked at by the liberals very differently than how they look at the global warming issue. <<<

ya think!....lol