The “March for Science” That Wasn’t

With all of the fanfare and hype surrounding the so-called March for Science (it really wasn’t), meteorologist and weather forecaster Joe Bastardi weighed in with an opinion column responding to the various expressions of hate directed, not just at yesterday’s gathering, toward people, like Bastardi, who have made conclusions contrary to the alleged consensus on climate change.

In addition to making his case using various charts and graphs, Bastardi raises serious questions:

Questioning of dogma need not apply. That sounds more like religion than science. Being for science means being for discussion. So who is anti-science here? A classic case of “blame your opposition for what you are actually doing.” It is not the skeptic side shutting down debate.

One must be very careful when questioning the motives in academia. There seems to be two opposing forces today in society in general: people who seek to earn their keep, and people who believe they are owed their keep. There is no question that without research — much of it done in our schools, but also government and the private sector — we would not be where we are today. But guess what fuels the economic engine that allows people the grant money, etc., for research?

I have to question motivation. For instance, if man-made global warming is such a done deal, why are we researching it anymore? Actual settled science (freezing and boiling points of water, gravity, the sun is darn hot) is not being researched. So apparently AGW is not settled science. And for a good reason — if it is true this is all man-made, it’s the first time, established by science, in recorded history. Another reason for being skeptical.

The fact is the Left is turning policy disagreements into strawmen and the so-called March for Science wasn’t just an anti-Trump event but the primary focus of it was to call for continued funding for science that affirms human-induced climate change. The event is also an attempt to (once again) intimidate and silence critics or dissenters in the field of climate science. However, Bastardi answers all three of his questions with a chart following his last question showing the correlation increased life expectancy, GDP per person, population and CO2 emissions. The increase in carbon dioxide emissions is tied to our civilization’s progress.

Environmentalists have politicized climate science in order to achieve their ends of attempting to revert mankind back to the Stone Age. The fact that groups, like Greenpeace, harp on or demonize CO2 emissions demonstrates their contempt for civilization since if the trends in Bastardi’s chart are reversed it means the end of Western Civilization. Environmentalists claim to be concerned about the planet but it is nothing more than a smoke screen.

Fortunately, climate realists (aka skeptics), like Joe Bastardi, have prevailed in the court of public opinion. Thanks to the efforts of various groups and people successfully revealing how the claims of alarmists are not true, people aren’t concerned about climate change anymore. It will not, however, stop environmentalists and their scientific allies from continuing to use studies linking human activity to climate change in order to achieve and maintain political power.